Star Citizen Megathread - Star Marine isn't doomed after all! - Games

[QUOTE=Dwarden;50945098]another LTI ship, only 235 USd [url]https://robertsspaceindustries.com/pledge/Standalone-Ships/Anvil-Terrapin-LTI[/url] guess the era of chance for sub 50 bucks LTI ship is gone forever ..[/QUOTE] Your price is including VAT. You must have missed the $35 Dragonfly LTI concept sale.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;50945347]Your price is including VAT. You must have missed the $35 Dragonfly LTI concept sale.[/QUOTE] The Dragonfly isn't exactly a normal ship.

[QUOTE=Dwarden;50945098]only 235 USd[/QUOTE] [B]"only"[/B] I don't ever think i am going to understand this game

I just want my Carrack... [I]Its so pretty...[/I]

Caved in and got an Aurora. Hope added stability is part of the next patch, because I haven't been able to consistently do more than 1 mission per session without suffering some fatal crash or disconnect.

I bought the freelancer mercantile ship. Just basic version. I don't really care to play this game in alpha but. I was lucky eneugh to back the game in 2014 for only 26euro. Which got me both games. But after gamescon showcase I was like fuck me thats awesome looking ship. Caved in and bought it for 96euro. Upgrade from ulgy looking Aurora ship thought don't want to grind to proper ship on launch. I'll never spend as much as some of you here do but atleast. I spend 120euro for my dream sci fi game. It's going to be 60 each for star citizen and squadron 4?? SP on launch anyway.

[QUOTE=Saber15;50945433]The Dragonfly isn't exactly a normal ship.[/QUOTE] No, but $35 means it can be upgraded into anything. There's your LTI whatevership.

[QUOTE=Oicani Gonzales;50945680]also this is pretty good [t]https://i.redd.it/lh8j9rayqihx.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] The first thing I had a problem with was the praise for ED's flight model with no mention to SC's. And then I noticed it was created by CMDR so-and-so and it all made sense. I'm not saying people aren't allowed to like ED's flight model, but it's deliberately based on an airplane flight model - in space. :v: I think SC's "capable of ripping the ship apart from torque" thrusters could use some toning down to make the response less instant, and they could/sort-of-have accomplish that just by having the thrusters have slower response times rather than pivoting to the exact needed angle and establishing the exact thrust level needed within one frame. But give it to me any day over ED's slow goopy attitude changes that perform best within a certain narrow range of throttle for no apparent reason 10/10 scientific accuracy. Late edit: On the other hand, I think the "Hater Hangouts" line is completely accurate. I also would've mentioned that SC plans to have VR support and mod support, but it's fair to say that neither are present now or in the near future.

Yeah, it feels pretty much Elite favoured

Strange thing is that under the "haters" end, you have "SC cultists". In my experience, most people in SC communities talking about ED are fairly chill about it - we talk shit about it where it deserves it, but it's literally nothing worse than what I've personally posted in the ED megathread talking shit about it (and had other ED players agree with me). On the other hand, if I mention "Star Citizen" in the Elite thread it's like I brought up Hillary Clinton's latest poll numbers in a room full of die-hard Trump supporters -- if I'm lucky I don't get called a shill. The Elite thread on the RSI forums is fairly decent and respectful (talking shit where deserved, I'm sure, but nothing out of line), while the SC thread on the FDev forums is an extension of the SA thread at this point and has always been a cesspit. I'm sure both communities have unsocialized autist knights who're always ready to drop a line of hate about the other's game, but you can find Xboxlive-level retardation in any community if you look hard enough, so it's hardly a point to complain about. [QUOTE=lekkimsm;50945439][B]"only"[/B] I don't ever think i am going to understand this game[/QUOTE] On this topic, the devs decide pricing on pledge ships based on a few factors, and not all of them apply in every situation. I'm not quoting hard rules for pricing, but this is what I've figured out from CIG comments over time: - The more potent a ship is at combat/its specialty, the more expensive it is - The more rare CIG wants a ship to be as of the game going live, the more expensive it is - The larger the ship is in terms of physical size (and therefore how long it will take devs to build), the more expensive - The greater a ship's intended earning potential for the player in the live game, the more expensive A particularly important aspect of pricing is the rarity detail. CIG wants the game to be full of diverse ships, but if everyone has a Super Hornet on day 1, why bother making any combat ship that's less powerful than a SH? CIG doesn't want the game to be full of Terrapins, so they price them at $195 (before tax) and this naturally disincentivizes people like me who aren't willing to throw that much real cash at the game for a small multicrew exploration ship -- some people will, but the vast majority of backers won't. If they sold the ship for $30 everyone and their grandma would have one. And the reason they do all of this complicated decision-making with pricing ships they're building is because this is how the game is funded -- it's entirely paid for by backers, and a small percentage of those backers choose to (and most of them are financially well-off enough that it's not irresponsible) pledge way more than the minimum to the game because they want to see the project through as best as it can be. If CIG only offered $60 or less and no other way to contribute, the money probably would've peaked at around $40mil and we'd be getting a much less ambitious game (and it'd already be out now and likely would be struggling to add features to keep the players happy the way Elite is and NMS should be).

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;50945767]The first thing I had a problem with was the praise for ED's flight model with no mention to SC's. And then I noticed it was created by CMDR so-and-so and it all made sense. I'm not saying people aren't allowed to like ED's flight model, but it's deliberately based on an airplane flight model - in space. :v: I think SC's "capable of ripping the ship apart from torque" thrusters could use some toning down to make the response less instant, and they could/sort-of-have accomplish that just by having the thrusters have slower response times rather than pivoting to the exact needed angle and establishing the exact thrust level needed within one frame. But give it to me any day over ED's slow goopy attitude changes that perform best within a certain narrow range of throttle for no apparent reason 10/10 scientific accuracy.[/QUOTE] Having played both games, I definitely throw the flight model star towards Elite despite its flight physics being silly. Elite's ships move with grace and precision, they behave like a well-engineered [I]machine[/I]. Star Citizen's ships move like they were slapped together in a shed, primarily because of their decision to put realistic physics in a universe where ships are designed by artists, not engineers. Ships handling is uncertain and it never feels like they are doing [I]exactly[/I] like what I tell them to do, more like I'm pushing on my joystick/mouse/whatever and they try to get a gross approximation of it. I'm pretty sure I've ranted about this before. It's gotten better since the initial release but the problem is still there.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;50945347]Your price is including VAT. You must have missed the $35 Dragonfly LTI concept sale.[/QUOTE] I still fail to see how I could upgrade it into another LTI ship w/o paying more ;) also I got burned already by supporting SC via quad-packs in KS era (those 3 of 4 never got any ship discounts as the primary account, while they claimed originally all will get it, tho now discounts are gone so it's irrelevant but I remember) so that's why I decided to toss money on E:D (so RSI technically helped fund ED in the end)

In terms of ships being designed to look cool first and fly second, the Mustang being the worst offender, I'll agree with you there, that's definitely a failing for SC. And I own an Omega, the ship with the most overpowered thrusters in the game just to ensure it can fly straight at top speed. However, I can give them some benefit of the doubt in that it's still alpha and getting the feeling [I]perfect[/I] isn't quite a priority yet, just as balancing the input methods for parity is a beta task. I could honestly see them move the Mustang's engines closer to the center line just so the thrusters didn't have to be insanely overclocked. On the other hand, I get a much different feeling from Elite's flight -- I feel like I'm steering through transparent mud.

[QUOTE=Saber15;50945876]Having played both games, I definitely throw the flight model star towards Elite despite its flight physics being silly. Elite's ships move with grace and precision, they behave like a well-engineered [I]machine[/I]. Star Citizen's ships move like they were slapped together in a shed, primarily because of their decision to put realistic physics in a universe where ships are designed by artists, not engineers. Ships handling is uncertain and it never feels like they are doing [I]exactly[/I] like what I tell them to do, more like I'm pushing on my joystick/mouse/whatever and they try to get a gross approximation of it. I'm pretty sure I've ranted about this before. It's gotten better since the initial release but the problem is still there.[/QUOTE] This is kinda how I feel E:D's flight model isn't realistic but neither is SC's and out of the two E:D's is more fun and varied between ships from what I've seen so far. Small ships in E:D feel nimble compared to big ships which feel lumbering and powerful, but in the hands of a skilled pilot either can prove a threat to the other. I can't really tell the difference between the Freelancer and the F7C's handling since I can flip both of them around faster than I can process what's going on and there are ships that can literally fly circles around those even as they're spinning unreasonably fast. It's important to remember of course that ships in Elite are much bigger than Star Citizen's ships on average, but I think I would still prefer a more Star Warsy flight model for SC. I also feel like boarding combat in SC is going to be nearly nonexistent. I have slapped a few would-be boarders to death with my hull. It's impossible to get on a crewed ship that doesn't want you getting on it.

The point is that if you wanted, say, an LTI Hornet, you can get an LTI Hornet. There've been plenty of cheaper LTI ships in somewhat recent times, anyway, with the Reliant, the Hulls A and B, the P-72, all $35-85. LTI is no big deal, anyway. [QUOTE=Dwarden;50945895](so RSI technically helped fund ED in the end)[/QUOTE] I take it you never saw [URL="https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/14384-Congratulations-Elite-Dangerous"]the two times Chris Roberts personally encouraged SC backers to try Elite out[/URL]? [URL="https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/12840-Project-GODUS-And-Elite-Dangerous"]Especially during the ED kickstarter when they had 17 days left and were still shy of their goal and Chris wanted to make sure they made it?[/URL] They did more to help fund ED than just discourage you from pledging more to them, but ok. [editline]25th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Grenadiac;50945909]I also feel like boarding combat in SC is going to be nearly nonexistent. I have slapped a few would-be boarders to death with my hull. [B]It's impossible to get on a crewed ship that doesn't want you getting on it.[/B][/QUOTE] Korro's Aurora and its locked-out HUD and zero system capabilities when I sat there and zapped him with Suckerpunches would probably beg to differ with you. If I had not been alone, Korro would've faced boarding action (of love). If you try and board a ship that isn't disabled and is aware of you, you deserve your rapid death. :v:

I guess we'll have to wait and see. I guess SC does/will have weapons designed to disable enemy ships. I just don't really like how nimble everything feels. I prefer E:D's flight model in any case and my dream space game is Elite's flight model paired with everything else about SC. :v:

[QUOTE=Oicani Gonzales;50945680]also this is pretty good [t]https://i.redd.it/lh8j9rayqihx.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] It was going pretty well up until the "Long Development" "Missed Deadlines" "Lots of scandals" and especially "Misuse of money" it claimed about Star Citizen. Seems to be biased towards Elite: Dangerous.

@elixwhitetail you missed the point that such approach was reason I shelled on ED way more than on SC ;) and it's really hard to please me after such approach as I'm too demanding fella ;)

[QUOTE=nightlord;50945966]It was going pretty well up until the "Long Development" "Missed Deadlines" "Lots of scandals" and especially "Misuse of money" it claimed about Star Citizen. Seems to be biased towards Elite: Dangerous.[/QUOTE] "2016 CMDR LexMoloch" Elite player. It manages to be fairly unbiased in some places, but there's definitely a bias towards ED.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;50945905]In terms of ships being designed to look cool first and fly second, the Mustang being the worst offender, I'll agree with you there, that's definitely a failing for SC. And I own an Omega, the ship with the most overpowered thrusters in the game just to ensure it can fly straight at top speed. However, I can give them some benefit of the doubt in that it's still alpha and getting the feeling [I]perfect[/I] isn't quite a priority yet, just as balancing the input methods for parity is a beta task. I could honestly see them move the Mustang's engines closer to the center line just so the thrusters didn't have to be insanely overclocked. On the other hand, I get a much different feeling from Elite's flight -- I feel like I'm steering through transparent mud.[/QUOTE] That really sounds inefficient, having to redesign entire ships because they weren't built with realistic flight mechanics in mind. Ship designers should have worked with actual engineers from the start.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;50945905]In terms of ships being designed to look cool first and fly second, the Mustang being the worst offender, I'll agree with you there, that's definitely a failing for SC. And I own an Omega, the ship with the most overpowered thrusters in the game just to ensure it can fly straight at top speed. However, I can give them some benefit of the doubt in that it's still alpha and getting the feeling [I]perfect[/I] isn't quite a priority yet, just as balancing the input methods for parity is a beta task. I could honestly see them move the Mustang's engines closer to the center line just so the thrusters didn't have to be insanely overclocked. On the other hand, I get a much different feeling from Elite's flight -- I feel like I'm steering through transparent mud.[/QUOTE] Elite's flight model changes heavily based on what ship you're in. The Sidewinder is slow and feels massive thanks to its hueg moment of inertia, but when you get in something like a Federal Assault Ship (:lick:) you have some oversized engines that allow the 500+ ton craft to handle like a jet fighter. A Sidewinder yaws like a building, while the Federal Assault Ship yaws as fast as it pitches. Also bear in mind that the ships in Elite are on average [I]significantly[/I] larger than their counterparts in other games. An Asp Explorer is as long and wide as a passenger jet. The tiny F-63 Condor and Imperial Fighter used in the CQC Arena fly like gnats. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x08skupb8cc[/media]

[QUOTE=Dwarden;50945972]@elixwhitetail you missed the point that such approach was reason I shelled on ED way more than on SC ;) and it's really hard to please me after such approach as I'm too demanding fella ;)[/QUOTE] How pleased are you with Horizons? ;) [QUOTE=_Axel;50945992]That really sounds inefficient, having to redesign entire ships because they weren't built with realistic flight mechanics in mind. Ship designers should have worked with actual engineers from the start.[/QUOTE] After the Mustang, CIG changed their ship pipeline workflow to physics test things in whitebox, rather than at hangar-ready/instrumentation. I'm pretty sure this was no coincidence. It's a fair point to ask why CIG didn't figure this out beforehand, but when you have several million dollars rolling in every month and 2-3x that when special events happen and you've got Chris Roberts redefining the scope of the game faster than you can document it, it's inevitable that things fall through the cracks.

Scale-wise, the ED ships generally make more sense; they're self-sufficient spacecraft that can get pretty far from civilization. The WW2 fighter size that a lot of the smaller SC ships have makes no sense for many of them. Hornet I get, due to being carrier-based, but many others are too small. That said, many of the ED ships are fugly. SC ships generally look better than that. As far as flight model goes, I very strongly prefer SC's attempt at space flight over ED's airplanes-in-space. While the SC model needs work, it's a lot more fun in my opinion.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;50945990]"2016 CMDR LexMoloch" Elite player. It manages to be fairly unbiased in some places, but there's definitely a bias towards ED.[/QUOTE] Looks fine to me. Especially considering Star Citizen has not been released yet.

[QUOTE=Toyokunari;50946329]Looks fine to me. Especially considering Star Citizen has not been released yet.[/QUOTE] The current playable build of SC has more of its originally promised features than Elite does at a lower cost of entry.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50946335]The current playable build of SC has more of its originally promised features than Elite does at a lower cost of entry.[/QUOTE] Bonus points SC didn't get people to buy the base game and then go "those other features we promised? Extra $40." [editline]25th August 2016[/editline] ED is fun as all hell, but I'm gonna be salty about how they handled Horizons for a good while.

@elixwhitetail well I run group of 100+ players with our own minor-faction space bubble ;) so we have some fun, but of course we wish we had more tools to create and control emerging gameplay in our region of space e.g. something like "community goals" but only visible to those in same area where the faction is and those who buy the trade data from the area via galaxy map while docked and some PowerPlay elements adopted for the minor-factions (e.g. defend/fortify etc.) I would like to run some constructions and lore based events but all I can do now is just useless newspaper entry (which will be gone in several days due to journal spam)

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;50946357]Bonus points SC didn't get people to buy the base game and then go "those other features we promised? Extra $40." [editline]25th August 2016[/editline] ED is fun as all hell, but I'm gonna be salty about how they handled Horizons for a good while.[/QUOTE] I enjoyed the hours I sank into Elite but the bare truth is it has yet to deliver on all of its promises and now you have to pay extra to get the ones it didn't include in the first year. It's ridiculous. I have the income to pay for it so I do so begrudgingly but I'm still mad about it.

I wish SC would give us a few more E:D-like "boxy" ships. Those Type-# Transporters make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside, now thats a cargo ship. Possibly a more armoured yet slower/under-equipped Hull-# equivilant? I have had some fun in E:D but always felt it lacking. The gigantic galaxy was unneeded, and as above the ridiculous price tag for Horizons especially for those who bought in early was a huge mistake.

I just want a Star Citizen equivalent to my Clipper. Sleek and luxurious but capable of both cargo and gunboat duties.