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

$110 mil stretch goal confirmed. The Drake Dragonfly, and its unadvertised secondary feature of not only being a space motorbike, but being a space motorbike you can do drive-bys from.

main weapon: 9mm pistol [editline]5th January 2016[/editline] I'm slightly sad there isn't such a ship

because the freelancer's guns initially stopped working after one shot, a group of us managed to hop in the back and fire our pistols into a dogfight. don't think we hit much but ye on the other hand we keep seeing people posting videos of blowing up gladius's with the auto rifle, it's pretty mean

Wasted a ton of time today. Managed to beat that minigame Hyper Vanguard Force. Got Apex Predator badge. Next I beat VS while fully decoupled. I only crashed once into a rock. But thankfully it didn't do too much damage. [t]http://i.imgur.com/va0nZiy.jpg[/t]

[video=youtube;qqcN6UkKfog]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqcN6UkKfog[/video] [QUOTE]02:07 – Ship Persistence 03:52 – Configuring your ship to use in 2.0 Mini PU 04:59 – Buy and Sell Used Ships 06:43 – Stealth Game Play 08:01 – Ability for Privateers/Corsairs/Buccaneers [B]09:43 – Landing on Planets[/B] 12:52 – Subscriber Benefits 13:52 – Game Manual 17:51 – Procedurally-Generated Environments 19:44 – Starfarer’s Refueling Mechanic[/QUOTE] The landing-on-planets question is big. CR reveals that the plan is now to have fairly free flight when approaching populated planets,but you have to stay on your flight path - leaving the flight path by too much triggers enforced autopilot to fly you down safely, no 9/11'ing or griefing taking-off people. On procedural planets, you should be able to land and get out anywhere, a la Connie commercial. Also, Starfarer will be hangar-ready this month, but not flyable yet.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;49465310]Also, Starfarer will be hangar-ready this month, but not flyable yet.[/QUOTE] space blanket :hypeisreal:

Didn't think Chris would actually say 9/11 but there we have it.

So what if I am missing most of my thrusters on approach? What if I were to say - purposefully remove the ones that would be required to stop me 9/11ing other players?

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;49465310]Also, Starfarer will be hangar-ready this month, but not flyable yet.[/QUOTE] I wonder if that'll include the Gemini or just the default.

[QUOTE=Squeegy Mackoy;49468078]So what if I am missing most of my thrusters on approach? What if I were to say - purposefully remove the ones that would be required to stop me 9/11ing other players?[/QUOTE] Magic invisible force, or the autopilot whirls your ship around to use the main engines.

Guess on just the base, they've been concentrating on getting the base ships in, the variants are second priority.

[QUOTE=Squeegy Mackoy;49468078]So what if I am missing most of my thrusters on approach? What if I were to say - purposefully remove the ones that would be required to stop me 9/11ing other players?[/QUOTE] then you succumb to the planet's gravity and have no say in where the ship lands, and the whole 'breaking up on re-entry' thing probably kicks in because your ship didn't approach at the right vector

Now I want gravity weapons. That would be fucking great.

[QUOTE=dai;49469300]then you succumb to the planet's gravity and have no say in where the ship lands, and the whole 'breaking up on re-entry' thing probably kicks in because your ship didn't approach at the right vector[/QUOTE] Or, to keep it simple, you just don't get landing perms.

[QUOTE=archangel125;49469959]Or, to keep it simple, you just don't get landing perms.[/QUOTE] I think he's saying, is if he just ignores permissions and goes careening (intentionally) off course, what's to stop his ship from being aimed at a landing pad and plummeting directly into it if systems are disabled. I'd say forcing a ship to self destruct "due to breaking up in the atmosphere" at a safe height and getting marked for insurance fraud is a great start

[QUOTE=dai;49469991]I think he's saying, is if he just ignores permissions and goes careening (intentionally) off course, what's to stop his ship from being aimed at a landing pad and plummeting directly into it if systems are disabled. I'd say forcing a ship to self destruct "due to breaking up in the atmosphere" at a safe height and getting marked for insurance fraud is a great start[/QUOTE] The whole 'insurance fraud' thing may be too harsh a penalty. Imagine this: PU starts. You take your 270 dollar Vanguard out to go kill some pirates. You get shot up during the fighting, lose some critical maneuvering thrusters. Decide to land at ArcCorp for repairs. You find that you're unable to maintain control of your ship during the approach because of your damage and go off course, break up in the atmosphere, blow up, whatever. Congratulations, you're never getting your huge, expensive ship back because insurance fraud.

[QUOTE=archangel125;49470032]The whole 'insurance fraud' thing may be too harsh a penalty. Imagine this: PU starts. You take your 270 dollar Vanguard out to go kill some pirates. You get shot up during the fighting, lose some critical maneuvering thrusters. Decide to land at ArcCorp for repairs. You find that you're unable to maintain control of your ship during the approach because of your damage and go off course, break up in the atmosphere, blow up, whatever. Congratulations, you're never getting your huge, expensive ship back because insurance fraud.[/QUOTE] marked, not punished for. It'd be blatant if someone keeps trying it that they're wrecking their ship on purpose, so it gets sent to a moderator to check out after X number of marks or whatever I at least expect that kind of an auto-report system if they're going to keep up with that on a smart level

[QUOTE=dai;49470047]marked, not punished for. It'd be blatant if someone keeps trying it that they're wrecking their ship on purpose, so it gets sent to a moderator to check out after X number of marks or whatever I at least expect that kind of an auto-report system if they're going to keep up with that on a smart level[/QUOTE] Could work. I still have no idea how CIG plans to manage the players using LTI to grief.

If your IFCS is too fucked, you should seek repairs in space if at all possible first, rather than attempt atmospheric entry with two working thrusters. In Stanton, there will definitely be alternatives to landing at ArcCorp. The Crucible's a thing. Cry-Astro's a thing (although the current version where you get instarepaired and refuelled/refilled for free won't carry over to the PU). Might even be able to send a "PAN-PAN" (look it up) distress signal and have player/NPC repair ships come to your aid.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;49470061]If your IFCS is too fucked, you should seek repairs in space if at all possible first, rather than attempt atmospheric entry with two working thrusters. In Stanton, there will definitely be alternatives to landing at ArcCorp. The Crucible's a thing. Cry-Astro's a thing (although the current version where you get instarepaired and refuelled/refilled for free won't carry over to the PU). Might even be able to send a "PAN-PAN" (look it up) distress signal and have player/NPC repair ships come to your aid.[/QUOTE] Right, you know me, I'd explore my options first, knowing what could go wrong. But not everyone can be expected to have that sort of foresight.

Yea, I would figure there are rules and regulations that would prevent damaged ships from attempting to land on a planet. You'd need to be able to stabilize yourself as you go in for a landing, lacking certain thrusters would become a big hindrance to that. There probably will be a docking station above most populated planets.

I'm interested to see how many tactics like that will crop up in game with all the various systems and physics; like, instead of a clan building a fleet to take down a capital as it's 'supposed' to be done, the order goes out for a bunch of low level guys to hop in Auroras and just kamikaze into the engines until it's disabled.

[QUOTE=Lambda 217;49470737]I'm interested to see how many tactics like that will crop up in game with all the various systems and physics; like, instead of a clan building a fleet to take down a capital as it's 'supposed' to be done, the order goes out for a bunch of low level guys to hop in Auroras and just kamikaze into the engines until it's disabled.[/QUOTE] Or just quantum jump into the ship's bridge, jump out, and pop the captain in the face with your glock :v:

[video=youtube;ZnQtZ_D1D7Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnQtZ_D1D7Q[/video] [QUOTE]00:29 – Intro 02:56 – News From Around the Verse 13:36 – [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dM8W683-YSg"]Gameplay Video[/URL] 14:25 – ATV Interview with Jeff Pease 23:19 – [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eufCV0Rz6VY"]Gameplay Video[/URL] 24:21 – ATV Behind the Scenes: Shubin Interstellar 56:36 – [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7uO374XzGw"]MVP[/URL] 57:33 – Art Sneak Peek[/QUOTE] [t]http://i.imgur.com/JSB2NKS.png[/t]

apparently star citizen devs are banning people for off-site activity??? [url]http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2016/01/star-citizen-backers-can-be-perma-banned-for-off-site-activity/[/url]

[QUOTE=Wii60;49480796]apparently star citizen devs are banning people for off-site activity??? [url]http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2016/01/star-citizen-backers-can-be-perma-banned-for-off-site-activity/[/url][/QUOTE] Of course they went to the media to put a spin on it. They were banned for leaking confidential information to Derek Smart.

The only people claiming to have been banned for off-site behaviour are Goons and their fuccboi DS. Beer4TheBeerGod was banned for documented bad behaviour on [I]the RSI forums[/I]. I've never heard of this other guy. Goons and DS are spinning it as "CIG are vindictively banning anyone who associates with Derek Smart". [QUOTE=CIG Director of Communications, David Swofford]I can tell you that the person in question violated our TOS and was banned for his behavior on the SC forums. Any further particulars for that ban are between CIG and our support staff.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=That blog]This is something to be wary of for potential backers because what you say or do off-site could affect what access you have on the Roberts Space Industries website, such as communicating with Derek Smart.[/QUOTE] This is exactly what DS and SA want to project.

apparently someone saw the UEC prices for some star ships in star citizen via xml files [url]https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/3zvnyh/data_mining_initial_pu_ship_prices/[/url] [t]http://i.imgur.com/pgsXFpu.png[/t]

Those ratios are a lot more forgiving than I was expecting. A Constellation is only 3.75 times more than an Aurora. That's good news. I was afraid that they would turn multi-crew ships like that into annoyingly inaccessible ships that take lots of grinding.

Those values are just $1=1000UEC, except for the ships clearly dummied out (1mil-1).