Star Citizen Megathread - Fly FREE thru Dec 14th! Link in OP - Games

[QUOTE=krail9;47226923]the gimbaled weapons will always be too strong, every other ship has to contend with a mix of gimbaled and fixed weapons, which actually tones back the power of multiple guns because they are much harder to use, eg: hornet - 6 guns (6 gimbal) gladius - 3 guns (1 gimbal) 325a - 3 guns (1 gimbal) avenger - 3 guns (1 gimbal) mustang D - 4 guns (2 gimbal) gladiator - 4 guns (2 gimbal) aurora LN - 4 guns (0 gimbal) these are all ships that are focused on COMBAT, yet they don't even come close to the hornet in terms of firepower. you have to go all the way up to the cutlass to even get close (5 guns, 3 gimbal), a large multicrew ship with significantly worse handling and speed, and even then only 3 guns are gimballed possible nerfs for the hornet: -massive powerplant nerf: only way i can forsee the hornet keeping 6 guns, is if it can only fire say 4 small ones or two large ones at a time. trying to fire more should be like the old 0.8 days where it starts draining your shield and disabling thrusters -only 4 guns: this would be the easiest solution, just completely remove the canard turret, or make it incompatible with the ball turret (so you can use canard turret + cargo box as an alternative) -less gimballed guns: making the wing guns fixed, so bringing your largest guns to bare is a lot harder with any of these the hornet is still going to be king of the sandbox, but hopefully it will stop SH's from melting lesser ships in a matter of seconds[/QUOTE] The Gladius and the Mustang Delta are the only other dedicated fighter craft, of those you've named. The 325A is a combat-oriented variant of a racing craft, the Avenger is a police interceptor for civilian law enforcement, the Aurora LN is a space volvo with guns strapped on, and the gladiator is a bomber. I should also add that the Hornet is the ONLY one of these craft that must sacrifice all its cargo space for those two extra guns. The Gladius and Mustang Delta both do not have as many gimballed weapons as the hornet, but are both lighter, more agile, and feature a wide array of more powerful size 2 missiles. So while I do agree that the Hornet needs nerfing, I do not agree that it necessarily needs to nerfed to the point that it's on par with any of the above ships. In my opinion, a good idea would be to lower the max size of weapons that can be attached to the mounts by 1, OR to nerf the powerplant to prevent all six weapons from being fired simultaneously. To fix any of the gimballed weapons or to remove any is an idea I completely disagree with. [editline]27th February 2015[/editline] A Hornet with its six gimballed guns is a short-range space superiority fighter. That's all it's good for, and the only use it'll have in the Persistent Universe.

the gladius and delta are both worse off in terms of missiles (the hornet is the only ship in the game with 8 guided missiles) and both have much weaker shields and hulls than the hornet, they also have 0 cargo space. the hornet is not sacrificing anything to get these insane guns, all other aspects are average or good, compared to other [I]dedicated fighters[/I] the other ships are just as important for combat even if that isn't their only role. if the 325 can't stand up to the hornet, frankly it's fucking useless. same goes for the avenger and gladiator otherwise every engagement boils down to who has the most hornets, and say goodbye to ship diversity chasing a pirate in an avenger? too bad, he has a hornet and you're fucked. relegate your gladiator to the hangar for 98% of it's life because it can't stand up to hornets in combat and is only useful for bombing super large ships. don't even get me started on the gladius, its one job is dogfighting and the hornet will swat that thing out of the air like a fly basically any situation when you don't need cargo, the hornet is the only viable option [editline]28th February 2015[/editline] my point wasn't to put it 'on par' like I said, it is technically the best dogfighter, but even with massively reduced weapons it's still a reasonably fast, tanky-as-hell ship - meaning it will beat anything else head-to-head, even with matched weapons

[QUOTE=krail9;47227197]the gladius and delta are both worse off in terms of missiles (the hornet is the only ship in the game with 8 guided missiles) and both have much weaker shields and hulls than the hornet, they also have 0 cargo space. the hornet is not sacrificing anything to get these insane guns, all other aspects are average or good, compared to other [I]dedicated fighters[/I] the other ships are just as important for combat even if that isn't their only role. if the 325 can't stand up to the hornet, frankly it's fucking useless. same goes for the avenger and gladiator otherwise every engagement boils down to who has the most hornets, and say goodbye to ship diversity chasing a pirate in an avenger? too bad, he has a hornet and you're fucked. relegate your gladiator to the hangar for 98% of it's life because it can't stand up to hornets in combat and is only useful for bombing super large ships. don't even get me started on the gladius, its one job is dogfighting and the hornet will swat that thing out of the air like a fly basically any situation when you don't need cargo, the hornet is the only viable option [editline]28th February 2015[/editline] my point wasn't to put it 'on par' like I said, it is technically the best dogfighter, but even with massively reduced weapons it's still a reasonably fast, tanky-as-hell ship - meaning it will beat anything else head-to-head, even with matched weapons[/QUOTE] I know the CiG team has a few nerfs/balancing changes planned for 1.1, so I'm looking forward to seeing what they do. I know for a fact they're making the Avenger's main cannon quite a bit more powerful than it is now, the better to match that 'space A-10' image people seem to have of it. They brought up in the last ATV that they're aware of complaints about the Hornet being too powerful, and that they're 'working on it'. Here's the way I've always seen things with regards to the Hornet - If you're going up against other small fighters head to head (That is, if those other fighters are NOT using tactics to defeat it), it'll wipe the floor with them. Missile boats like the Gladius and Mustang Delta, and ships like the Gladiator, are geared towards engaging and destroying large multi-crew fighters (Every multi-crew ship under Idris size) and in providing standoff range offensive support. The 325a has its strength in its speed and agility. It can fly circles around a Hornet, is very, very difficult to track, and its Omnisky lasers make short work of the F7C, which both moves and changes directions more slowly. The Hornet's role is to go straight in to combat, hammer the enemy and weather its hits, and destroy it with withering firepower. In the end, it'll destroy any small fighter it goes head to head with, if the pilot of that fighter is unskilled by comparison. But as with anything else, it has its limitations.

The Hornet loadout is fine. Most Hornets won't be Super Hornets and those that are will be doing nothing but shooting because they'll have literally no cargo hold. Your average Hornet will probably be carrying the little cargo hold instead of the turret because how would you pick up any good loot? What's wrong is the way gimballed weapons work that makes them such an all or nothing proposition, so "OP", and so heavily dependent on your control scheme. I've debated this subject to death and frankly I'm tired of the discussion, but whatever. The super short TL;DR is that Elite already solved this problem. The problem is twofold. One, that there isn't a distinction in power between gimballed weapons and fixed weapons. Two, that gimballed weapons are extremely control dependant which both creates serious balance issues and makes it near impossible to take advantage of both gimballed and fixed weapons at the same time. I saw this coming from the very beginning. I had this problem when modding Freelancer, and Mechwarrior Online has this problem right now. In fact, I even asked about this very specific topic when jonoPorter got his talk with CR. Something dramatic needs to happen with the way gimballed weapons, and weapons in general are handled. CIG has already said that weapon stats, hardpoints, and sizes are getting a complete overhaul so something is definitely up. I have no idea what they're planning or what direction they're going, but the current system is flawed and lacks granularity.

[QUOTE=Why485;47227354]The Hornet loadout is fine. Most Hornets won't be Super Hornets and those that are will be doing nothing but shooting because they'll have literally no cargo hold. Your average Hornet will probably be carrying the little cargo hold instead of the turret because how would you pick up any good loot? What's wrong is the way gimballed weapons work that makes them such an all or nothing proposition, so "OP", and so heavily dependent on your control scheme. I've debated this subject to death and frankly I'm tired of the discussion, but whatever. The super short TL;DR is that Elite already solved this problem. The problem is twofold. One, that there isn't a distinction in power between gimballed weapons and fixed weapons. Two, that gimballed weapons are extremely control dependant which both creates serious balance issues and makes it near impossible to take advantage of both gimballed and fixed weapons at the same time. I saw this coming from the very beginning. I had this problem when modding Freelancer, and Mechwarrior Online has this problem right now. In fact, I even asked about this very specific topic when jonoPorter got his talk with CR.[/QUOTE] This, pretty much. Which is why I said having the size of guns that can be used by the hornet reduced by 1 would be an acceptable trade-off. [editline]27th February 2015[/editline] I fly with an Xbox 360 controller, which has several problems. One, that I can't cycle between countermeasure types (Really stupid oversight, IMHO) two, that all my weapons have to be assigned to group one so I can fire them with the trigger. If I want to fire group 2, I need to hit the 'X' button, which means that I have to take my thumb off the right thumb-stick, and can no longer aim the gimbals.

well I think the mix of gimballed and fixed weapons is a good way to balance joystick vs mouse mouse users will use the gimballed weapons with aim, scoring more hits with fewer guns. joystick users will will fix the gimbals forward, scoring fewer hits with more guns look at the joystick vs mouse leaderboard stats that people have done on the forums, it's actually not that bad - something like 30-40% joystick users... until you get to the all-gimballed ships (hornet and m50) where it is like 95% mouse

BTW, I was flying my Super Hornet and just got my ass handed to me repeatedly by a pilot in a Mustang Delta, and again by one in a 300-series ship. Assuming that my skill level is slightly above average, if not more than slightly, that serves to illustrate my point - skilled pilots will overcome any challenge - and those two were more skilled than I. [editline]27th February 2015[/editline] I hardly got any hits off on the 300 series pilot - he was flying decoupled and managed to jink out of the way of almost all my shots.

anecdotes vs stats: [img]http://puu.sh/gfAWy.png[/img] here's a rough comparison of how much dps you can potentially get from each ship I used the cw repeaters since they put out consistent dps and there's one of each size I gave fixed weapons a 40% handicap because it's so much harder to land shots with them the stats really speak for themselves - the hornet has twice the damage of other single seaters - and this is only with size 3 guns instead of 4, since I don't think there's any size 4s in game yet

[QUOTE=krail9;47227641]anecdotes vs stats: [img]http://puu.sh/gfAWy.png[/img] here's a rough comparison of how much dps you can potentially get from each ship I used the cw repeaters since they put out consistent dps and there's one of each size I gave fixed weapons a 40% handicap because it's so much harder to land shots with them the stats really speak for themselves - the hornet has twice the damage of other single seaters - and this is only with size 3 guns instead of 4, since I don't think there's any size 4s in game yet[/QUOTE] I rather think the difficulty in landing shots with either gimballed or fixed weapons depends a lot on individual skill and control scheme. A ballpark number for a handicap like 40% doesn't prove anything any more than my anecdotes do, and certainly fails to account for variation in player skill levels. Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree here and leave it up to the devs.

[QUOTE=archangel125;47227683]I rather think the difficulty in landing shots with either gimballed or fixed weapons depends a lot on individual skill and control scheme. A ballpark number for a handicap like 40% doesn't prove anything any more than my anecdotes do. Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree here and leave it up to the devs.[/QUOTE] I think your point of view comes partially from the fact you use gamepad. use mouse/kb, and compare gimballed to fixed (press alt to fix foward). you will see that only 40% is extremely generous [editline]28th February 2015[/editline] I think we can all agree the omniskys should go die in a fire

[QUOTE=krail9;47227694]I think your point of view comes partially from the fact you use gamepad. use mouse/kb, and compare gimballed to fixed (press alt to fix foward). you will see that only 40% is extremely generous [editline]28th February 2015[/editline] I think we can all agree the omniskys should go die in a fire[/QUOTE] Perhaps so. I personally find it very difficult and very annoying to fly with a KB/M, even if shooting is easier. Other players tend to use a joystick and throttle because they feel that it's more authentic and gives them much finer control over flight, even if it doesn't let them aim gimballed weapons. Why485 was right, CiG still has work to do to even the playing field. Things are definitely way better than when AC was released, but still not where they need to be.

How much does this game cost to actually get into the beta and play? I'm seeing wildly different figures ranging from 50 to almost obscene numbers, but I can't seem to get a straight answer.

45

[QUOTE=AtomicWaffle;47227797]How much does this game cost to actually get into the beta and play? I'm seeing wildly different figures ranging from 50 to almost obscene numbers, but I can't seem to get a straight answer.[/QUOTE] It's around... 45 dollars at the moment to buy an Aurora MR starter ship pledge package and an Arena commander pass together, which gets you in on the game.

[url]https://robertsspaceindustries.com/pledge/Packages/Mustang-Alpha-AC-Starter[/url] [url]https://robertsspaceindustries.com/pledge/Packages/Aurora-MR-AC-Starter[/url] [editline]27th February 2015[/editline] goddamnit [editline]27th February 2015[/editline] haha holy shit the cutlass voice it's like that old people car from top gear

[QUOTE=AtomicWaffle;47227797]How much does this game cost to actually get into the beta and play? I'm seeing wildly different figures ranging from 50 to almost obscene numbers, but I can't seem to get a straight answer.[/QUOTE] The site [I]finally[/I] added a front-and-center front page navigation button marked "Fly Now" that fast-tracks you onto the two package options that let you do everything available now (linked above) and covers the basics like system requirements. Buying any other ships once you have a basic package is optional. Ships aren't a vertical power climb in SC as much as they are more suited to different roles (and the new modularity system is hinting at significant amounts of flexibility for branching into other roles). It'll be possible to never leave the Aurora family and still get what you want done for SC's lifetime, so long as you only want to do so many things; an Aurora'll never outmatch an Orion even if it's geared to the tits to be a single-purpose miner in the new modularity system, for obvious reasons.

I have a soft spot for the Aurora as a non-combat ship. I imagine I'll be using mine to explore the 'Verse whenever a larger ship or a more combat-oriented one isn't explicitly needed. I really like the gem-like cockpit design and the fact it's got a bed, and it fits well with the idea I have for my character.

So, I stopped being a lazy faggot for at least a little while and have reviewed the submissions. I'm not done going through the whole official thread, but there were only three FPers who entered, so that made it easy. All three were good entries, I'd call them above average for the responses I got on the SC thread. However, since I have to choose one, I pick archangel125's. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/cIYHyxc.png[/IMG] Thanks for your contributions, and please feel free to add more, even though the contest is over. I'm hoping to keep the thing alive, and I just might give a ship away for the best entry (past entries in the contest count) at the one-month mark if it's popular enough. Like, 200 entries or something (not the same as 200 posts) in the SC forums thread. And sorry for taking three fucking days to choose from all of three entries, but I wanted to get them both done at once and it's a lot harder to choose from two pages' worth.

About the whole Super Hornet being OP thing, what about the fact that the turret is supposed to be controlled by a second pilot - a pilot that we can't actually have yet? Now I'm not thinking too deep into it, but a possible solution off the top of my head: Make the turret guns fixed when there's only one pilot. Reason being, when there are two pilots, the main flyer will only have access to the front and wing guns anyways. Disregarding coordination of course.

[QUOTE=ubersoldier;47229144]About the whole Super Hornet being OP thing, what about the fact that the turret is supposed to be controlled by a second pilot - a pilot that we can't actually have yet? Now I'm not thinking too deep into it, but a possible solution off the top of my head: Make the turret guns fixed when there's only one pilot. Reason being, when there are two pilots, the main flyer will only have access to the front and wing guns anyways. Disregarding coordination of course.[/QUOTE] Well, technically it isn't and never was intended to be controllable only by the gunner. The lore - And Chris Roberts - always said that it was *possible* for control of the ball turret to be handed off at the discretion of the pilot to a gunner in the second seat on the Super Hornet, to split the duty of flying and fighting, and to better engage targets chasing the SH Alternatively, the one in the rear seat can handle the ship's navigation or ride as a passenger. The regular, single-seater F7C is also compatible with the ball-turret, as the cargo container is removable, and that one can use it just as freely as a one-man crew on the SH.

Also thanks for the jukebox, Elix, ily(no homo) [sp]maybe a little homo[/sp] We must put our master plan into action when the PU goes live.

Part of the idea archangel's talking about is an FPCorp video, which begins with footage of Rust and implies that FPCorp is a group of escaped naked bald guys who made it off the island and out of containment and into space. And there's lots of shots of spacing guys. And crashing into things in groups. And a Constellation that's constantly rolling and shooting its guns straight out flies by with muffled but overblown Sandstorm playing, as if coming from the ship. Then it crashes into a terraformer and explodes into a fireball with no survivors, music cutting out on impact. Also an Aurora spewing/spacing hundreds of ragdolls out the airlocks like a Gmod clown car or a drilldo victim with high poot rates. And then there was something about crashing a big heavy ship into an Orion, in front of the ore rings, to see if we can snap it in half, but I'm not sure if that was for the video or just something FPCorp could/should go around doing. [sp]yes[/sp] [editline]28th February 2015[/editline] Also, on the topic of Hornets and monoboating, among other things, a CIG dev dropped some little bombshells. [URL="https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/2xfi07/i_screenshotted_some_stuff_a_dev_said_in_chat/"]Reddit source and summary:[/URL] OP disclaimer: "A lot of this is without context and should not be taken without a huge pinch of salt. Remember that AC 1.1 will make sweeping changes to a huge number of systems, so when devs mention changes, the context of the game will also have changed." [QUOTE]1: CIG Matt Sherman, [B]The Monoboat super hornet loadout is pretty much going away in 1.1[/B] All the longstanding mount/size issues are getting cleaned up, [B]so possible guns are going to actually start reflecting the ship specs more[/B]. 2:CIG Matt Sherman, [B]REC is happening in 1.1[/B], but we haven't confirmed a set release for when melting VD items could be possible since that system is still in the works. 3:CIG Matt Sherman, @Stoic: Mount points on ships are getting cleaned up because currently, mounts are letting people equip larger guns than intended to different hard-points. [B]The biggest change is going to be a ships loadout will more accurately reflect the size-limits noted on the ships-specs.No more loading s2 weapons on a s1 Canard and the likes.[/B] 4: Question. So no class 2a or 2b size 2 gimbal mounts that can mount size three weapons? Cig Matt Sherman: Those mounts should all be removed in 1.1 and replaced 5: CIG Matt Sherman: Not sure on the power-plant output overall, but a blue would have more hull armor/health than a SH 6: CIG Matt Sherman: Cutlass will also likely be alot more nimble/maneuverable than a Lanver in the grand-scheme 7: CIG Matt Sherman: There's going to be optimization at some point, but the game is still going to be very resource intensive 8: CIG Matt Sherman: Physical sizes are been redone abit, so it should clean itself up overtime. 9: CIG Matt Sherman: That, and we don't have any s4 guns in-game atm, so it's bit a big issue ... 11: Question: And I guess replacements will be available for REC? or is that not yet Known. CIG Matt Sherman: No, the ships all were updated so they'll be coming with the updated mounts where needed 12: CIG Matt Sherman: Super Hornet shield can match a Cutlass Black or Red, Cutlass Blue has a more powerful max shield 13: CIG Matt Sherman: M50 is overpowered atm because of mount issues, but that gets cleaned up in 1.1, The current mount issues let you load bigger guns on the M50 than intended, along with most other ships. The Health is getting worked on for the M50, but it still wasn't supposed to mount S3's with the current mount issues. 14: CIG Matt Sherman: Bigger mounts won't be available until we have bigger guns and ships setup to run them. 15: CIG Matt Sherman: Cutlass turret is being fixed in 1.1 /Expect mounts/loadout restrictions to match the ship-specs page / The Turret was supposed to be a S2's not S4's 16: CIG Matt Sherman: There's no S4 gun atm, so it's moot that a few ships have hardpoints for them, Part of why we're getting the mounts fixed sooner than later so we're in a better place to add bigger guns as multi-crew stuff comes online 17: CIG Matt Sherman: Nope, if anything , the Turret was only spec'd for S1's though we're keeping it as S2 in 1.1 and will probably be adjusting the page if it feels right. Cutlass turret that is 18: CIG Matt Sherman: 350 will be a stronger interceptor just weighed against the M50 in 1.1 just on the mount/loadout changes 19: CIG Matt Sherman: 350 could out run an Avenger, but if the Avenger gets steady fire on the 350, the Tigerstreik will wreck it, plus the Avenger has some cargo capacity, so if it was like a bounty-hunt, you could take the guy alive. 20: CIG Matt Sherman: Sure it's an 'if' as much as a 350 taking out an Avenger without getting damaged by it is an 'if" "Bit hard to guess what was said before hand in this one" 21: CIG Matt Sherman: Plus, Avenger comes with missiles stock. 22: CIG Matt Sherman: The Avenger has more kill-force, 350R has more speed. No one ship should have it all at once. 23: CIG Matt Sherman: [B]Sizes are remaining the same, but there's afew other things that will be coming into play that are being held off from discussion until we're closer to 1.1[/B] 24: CIG Matt Sherman: Ya, Sledges were boosted, though there's a few issues with them atm that are getting cleaned up. 25: CIG Matt Sherman: [B]SH is probably getting the biggest nerf when we fix mounts[/B] 26: CIG Matt Sherman: There's going to still be something using the rail ammo for sure, though there's a chance the Sledge may get a bigger rework, and a better dedicated railgun visual weapon gets the rail ammo. 27: CIG Matt Sherman: But the damage isn't slated to get changed in 1.1 28: CIG Matt Sherman: SH still has 6 guns, [B]just not 6xS3 being usable anymore[/B]. ... 29: CIG Matt Sherman: [B]Not just SH mounts, but every mount is getting revised[/B] 30: CIG Matt Sherman: Question: Superhornet not doing that great in ac on higher pilot skill chart. CIG Matt Sherman: That doesn't change the fact that the mounts aren't correct in the current game and need to be fixed 31: Question: But you said nerf. CIG Matt Sherman: [B]No ship should have been breaking its size-limit weapon wise which the current mounts were causing. it is a nerf from what people are used to.[/B] 32: CIG Matt Sherman: Ya, the handling on the Cutlass is also intended as kind of a pilot-skill check. Some of the speeds may be a little fast, but there's always going to be some aspect of 'Oversteer' as it were with the turning and rolling. 33: CIG Matt Sherman: But the trade off on that is the Cutlass has the fastest boost/maneuvering in game currently 34: CIG Matt Sherman: Counter-boosting out of the roll is also part of the plan thought, but it shouldn't take alot to kill the roll, Like I normally boost into a spin, but just have to tap-boost to kill the spin 35: CIG Matt Sherman: [B]And it helps with missile evasion, without countermeasures because it's a fast enough spin to actually let you dodge the missile outright.[/B] 36: CIG Matt Sherman: It takes a bit of getting used to, I spend about 2 weeks when we were getting that handling setup, and it still took a bit longer after it went live to get the hand on boost-evades from missiles 37: CIG Matt Sherman: about 1.1 and ships, [B]Health is getting boosted[/B], mounts are getting fixed to prevent mounting large than intended guns. 38: CIG Matt Sherman: Question: When are you making it so nerds can't mess with their user inventory file and becomhilariously overpowered? CIG Matt Sherman: That's more a long-term thing onces the PU is running where the server would do oversight on those things[/QUOTE]

I like the outlook of this game... But I don't want to put any money down Until things look a litle more solid, I've jumped on oen too many "Promising" early access games so far and I'm Loathe to get on board another till whats allready there is worth having. As for the kinda ship I would by...well I have a hard on for capital ships with the big guns and the hangar bay with the fithers that zip around and the MASSIVE ANTI EVERYTHNG CANNON. My dream ship is something that is capable of using an internal factory and mining tools to be an every self sustaining engine that can repair modify and improve itself even when a long ways from traditional supply line, effectivly a mobile starbase.

I wonder what changes exactly are coming to the Hornet. [editline]28th February 2015[/editline] Oh! OH, I understand! [quote]so possible guns are going to actually start reflecting the ship specs more.[/quote] So max size for super hornet wing mounts is probably going to be staying at 4 (To hold the gatling, I hope they do something to rebalance that since 4 is ridiculous), and max size for canard and ball mounts is going to be 1 and 2 respectively. I'm... okay with this! [editline]28th February 2015[/editline] I hope ship loadouts in the future get more versatile, so that instead of guns on the wing mounts of my hornet I can stick a rack of size 2 missiles there instead, if I know I'm doing a mission to conduct an assault on a capital ship, for instance.

[QUOTE=thisguy123;47230753]I like the outlook of this game... But I don't want to put any money down Until things look a litle more solid, I've jumped on oen too many "Promising" early access games so far and I'm Loathe to get on board another till whats allready there is worth having.[/quote] This is the right idea; jump in when you're ready to jump in. For some people, just hearing the name Chris Roberts was enough for them to jam their credit card into the PC. Others waited until dogfighting was actually possible, a year and a half or so into development (and months behind schedule). 2015 is the magic year when all the big puzzle pieces that make up the core experiences land and start to be knitted together into what will become the finished product. The patches will be rough and the mechanics raw and low on content at first, with each component release, but there'll be a steady climb of improvement, just as there has been with Arena Commander. So, keep an eye on SC over the coming months. AC1.1 (big overhauls in the works) and the fps and social/planetside modules are due in basically the next six weeks. The dev team is in full-on crunch mode for getting AC1.1 ready. [QUOTE=thisguy123;47230753]As for the kinda ship I would by...well I have a hard on for capital ships with the big guns and the hangar bay with the fithers that zip around and the MASSIVE ANTI EVERYTHNG CANNON. My dream ship is something that is capable of using an internal factory and mining tools to be an every self sustaining engine that can repair modify and improve itself even when a long ways from traditional supply line, effectivly a mobile starbase.[/QUOTE] Don't shoot the messenger, but you're talking about capital ships, and in Star Citizen, capital ships are significant to massive group efforts. The Javelin, the largest pledge ship (at $2,500 USD), has a minimum crew of 23, plus you'll need pilots for the fighters it carries. It'll be possible to have NPCs fill the role of crew members and fly the ship solo, but it's not going to be as effective as a player crew communicating and coordinating with each other. The devs are taking a "you're allowed to try" approach instead of outright forbidding the situation, where you can go ahead and fill as many positions as possible with NPCs, but the consequences will fall upon you for relying on AIs. Really huge ships are as much a burden as they are a giant dick flying around through space fucking up whatever they want, because they have immense maintenance costs (including the crew on-board). If you're part of a big group that can get along, you might have an incredibly awesome and fulfilling experience in Star Citizen, because the scale does go all the way up to 1.1km carrers with almost 100 weapons stations and room for ~70 fighters, with a "full" crew complement exceeding 800 (fucktons of these being AI). However, it won't be easy to get there from square one. We don't know how far the modularity system is going to go, but I don't think you're going to be able to achieve all of your dreams. Being able to handle mining plus processing and equipment fabrication for internal repairs, sure, I can see that in a modified Orion or something. Being able to modify and improve the ship on the fly in the middle of nowhere in space, nnnnot so much. Maybe an endgame alien-race ship that's in rare supply (black market or take forcefully) could justify such a powerful ability. Player groups will be able to control abandoned stations in lawless space (after a lot of effort), which I imagine will sometimes include working mining and refining facilities, and players and orgs will be able to own (but with limited control) factories on planets, allowing player guilds to run their own supply chain. But I don't see a mobile station that can do all of these at once being a thing in Star Citizen within the next five years if ever. If it were to be added (who'm I to say no? It'd be cool, admittedly, if fairly OP), I imagine that it'd probably be more of a late-stage endgame ship so that orgs could truly live on the move in space. It occurs to me that thisguy might like the Banu Merchantman, since in the lore they last for hundreds of years, in continuous inhabited operation. True, they're not self-sufficient, exactly, as they trade for what they want, but on the other hand they're a mobile store so they can trade wherever they want as long as people are willing to not shoot. Banu MMs have to manage repairs [I]somehow[/I]. The MM is expensive as fuck, though, so earning enough to buy and operate one could be your first major goal once the game goes live after the last wipe, rather than a ship you purchase for real cash right now. [QUOTE=elixwhitetail;47229037][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/cIYHyxc.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] BTW, I just want to point out that I didn't censor arch's name just for that screenshot; the gift email he got called him "Dear Some moron from Facepunch who won a thing". Because I spare no effort to give my contest winners the personal treatment they deserve.

[QUOTE=archangel125;47232929] So max size for super hornet wing mounts is probably going to be staying at 4 (To hold the gatling, I hope they do something to rebalance that since 4 is ridiculous), and max size for canard and ball mounts is going to be 1 and 2 respectively. I'm... okay with this! [/QUOTE] gt220 is s3

[QUOTE=the_killer24;47233258]gt220 is s3[/QUOTE] Just going by the Specs page and the info page for the SH on the RSI website. 3 is FAR more reasonable. [editline]28th February 2015[/editline] [B]I had no idea people had been mounting 6 size 3 weapons on the Super Hornet.[/B] No wonder the game was so broken in its favour. I'd been using Size 2 mounts on the wings and ball turret, size 1 on the canard the whole time. Guess not a lot will change for me.

So I haven't been keeping up with star citizen at all since i bought the aurora pledge. Just saw the orion mining ship and holy fuck I'm dropping money on that shit. I want it. Damn I can't wait for my tax refund to come back.

You've got until Monday to get it with LTI, if you haven't already purchased it.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;47234148]You've got until Monday to get it with LTI, if you haven't already purchased it.[/QUOTE] That sucks. I probably won't be able to get it.