/edg/scg/ Star Citizen Elite: Dangerous general #148

File: Drake_Dragonfly_Exploration_Planetside01.2.jpg (1MB, 3601x1752px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3601x1752px

I just want to bomb around on a dustball in a dragonfly.

File: NextOrdinaryGartersnake.webm (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

WHEN.

File: 3pointX.jpg (219KB, 1112x1048px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 1112x1048px

June or riot.

>REC
>hey guys, go and grind virtual alpha currency in a pre-alpha so you can buy flight suits, armor and weapons that we will wipe from your account in the next pre-alpha build
Or you can pay $18 for a single gun in our cash shop ;)
It's OK because we're CIG

>>172830335
>If you want to throw money at us we will let you.
No one has to participate in the alpha. Additionally, rec and rec rented equipment persists through patches, You're talking about aUEC. Rec is easy as shit to farm and can be stockpiled for use whenever and will in fact continue to be used in the released game as the Arena Commander in game currency.

Farming rec is pisseasy, you're just lazy and/or terrible.

>>172833426
>Rec is easy as shit to farm
Farm = grind. No thank you.

>>172833640
then be happy with your default kit or dont play the game, fucks sake, no ones holding a gun on you. And alpha literally means feature incomplete.

>>172833994
You still haven't given a valid reason for wiping people's aUEC in pre-alpha.

Buyback token when?

>>172834206
April 3rd.

Talk me out of the caterpillar

I already pledged years ago with freelancer max for my space trucking, I should be content right?? right??

File: ScreenShot0484.jpg (447KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

447KB, 1920x1080px

>>172834749
Bad price/performance ratio for a cargo ship. Shitty turrets, a large part of the front modules doesn't actually hold any cargo (pic related, central walkway and catwalk).

It might actually be good if they ever get around to making the other modules like salvage etc., but I wouldn't buy one based on that, considering that Ben hinted at medium-sized salvaging and mining ships as concepts later this year.

>>172834943
I think that front section is supposed to hold Dragonflies, and whatever else doesn't need locking down on a cargo grid.

File: ScreenShot0430.jpg (448KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

448KB, 1920x1080px

>>172835023
Yeah, but the above pic is how the 4 regular modules look like. Front module looks like this.

>>172835106
I always thought the front was a hangover from back when they had plans for docking

>>172834205
becasue its an alpha you sperg, Alpha's get wiped, aUEC is part of the PU alpha, the PU Alpha gets wiped, aUEC goes away like everything else in the PU alpha. This is not a complicated idea. Just because you farmed a shitload of a worthless currency out of autistic boredom doesn't mean that worthless temporary currency isn't what it is. Theres only like 5 ways to get aUEC and if you do all of them through once you will have all the aUEC you need for a given patch. enough for armor, weapons, equipment and even some silly clothes. Those will be with you until the alpha wipes the items and the currency both, then if you are so inclined you do it again.

That is completely reasonable, of all the thing people get mad at in SC this is in contention for most retarded complaint.


>>172834943
It's objectively worse than a Starfarer at the same price point, we have no idea at all what the modules will include and it relies entirely on gun turrets, which are shit in the game as it sits for firepower.

>>172835480
You still haven't given a valid reason for wiping people's aUEC in pre-alpha.

>>172829603
Is 3.0 now going to be just Crusader or already all of Stanton?

>>172835816
even CIG doesn't fucking know.

>>172835606
So shit can get rebalanced after major changes without having to take the spergs into account who have flicked on hundreds of thousands of comm relays in 2.6. the people who can now instantly buy some new shiny bullshit item they're selling in game would invalidate any of the new data they would be trying to collect on how long it takes to farm up for various items.

>>172835816
The original plan was to have landing zones for Crusader, MicroTech, Hurston, Delmar and ArcCorp.

I think that we will get some barren planets instead of these for now though, with the landing zones added later.

>>172836227
>So shit can get rebalanced
Like you're so fond of reminding us, it's pre-alpha.

Everyone should have access to all the equipment to test. This is a test environment, is it not?

There's no reason to put stuff behind paywalls or grind, in a pre-alpha. Nobody wants to run a 17 mission chain to buy some flight suits, armor and weapons.

Stupid game design as a foundation will lead to the same boring shit that kills every other boring game.

So how is that 2014 release going?
Oh wait.

>>172836373
>I think that we will get some barren planets instead of these for now though, with the landing zones added later.
I'm still convinced that we'll get 2.7 with only the Crusader moons.

>>172836546
It's pre-alpha. Get over it.

>>172836546
To add, there is supposed to be crafting, exploration and a bunch of other stuff to get equipment, including alien weapons and upgrades and a bunch of other stats. None of those should require grind, and you can't measure how long it takes to get them. Resetting everything is pointless to me.

>how many missions should people have to do before they buy this gun?
Who cares. People should be able to pick up a gun from a dead body and keep it without buying it. Chris is so fond of "realism" and "fidelity" yet puts that to the side when it comes to grind and cash. What a load of shit.

>>172836662
Yes, it's pre-alpha. And you're trying to justify stupidity. I'd say you're the one who needs to get over it.

I don't even play the PU because CR's game design is garbage.

File: 1489771354695.jpg (252KB, 1130x1000px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 1130x1000px

>>172836772
And yet here you are.

>>172836840
>And yet here you are.
Non sequitur.

>>172836602
I think that's very likely, as the moons look finished and they could use the patch to get the new Cutlass in.

The moons themselves will be absolutely barren though. 2.7 would need to add new missions, and maybe even something like the Delmar landing zone.

File: ScreenShot0546.jpg (420KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

420KB, 1920x1080px

External cargo racks when?

>>172837850
Never, hullbabby

>>172838472
never ever

>go to bed
>thread dies

>anon stop posting dadquotes to fish for (you)s, it ruins the thread

sometimes daddery is the only thing keeping this thread alive you fucks

File: RocketPods.webm (293KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 1280x720px

Gladius and Gladiator fags must be extremely moist at seeing these. I, too, am excited for the ensuing hell. Being in direct control of your explosives, and where they hit, will be a game changer.

>1 salvo of rockets
>destroy shields
>ballistics ready
wakemeupbeforeyougogo.exe

Fuck missiles.

>>172838905
I'm irritated that Gladiusfags get the same amount of them as a Gladiator

Because that makes little sense to me for a "laser focus dogfighting" ship

>>172837850
>he's asking for cargo when there's no cargo mechanic
>for a ship that's a fuel refinery/dispenser, when even that isn't in the game yet

come on anon.

>>172838905
I'm guessing that most gun slots will become gun/rocket slots, but hopefully some ships (Gladiator and Buccaneer especially) will get missile/rocket slots.

>>172839157
>I'm guessing that most gun slots will become gun/rocket slots

Highly unlikely

Really low ammo / High damage just means you could cover your ship in them for extreme alpha strike, and that wouldn't be good for anyone.

>>172838905
Did you ever get to try the rocket pods on the Mustand Delta? They're not that great unless someone is flying straight at you.

>>172839274
>They're not that great unless someone is flying straight at you.

Because they were broken and the targeting pip lied. If you actually learned how to aim them they hit absurdly hard

File: S1.png (496KB, 1280x800px) Image search: [Google]

496KB, 1280x800px

>>172839034
The gladiator holds plenty more missiles than the Gladius.

You will be able to switch out your missile pylons for rockets. We just never had rockets (yet).

>>172839405
Not going to be able to put rocket pods in the belly bay, there isn't direct line of sight.

In terms of pylons that could accept rockets and fire them clearly, they have the same amount.

>>172839252
I'm not saying have them everywhere, but I think direct-fire rockets will be the go-to weapon for hitting large and slow-moving targets that your normal guns can't really damage.

Considering that the rocket pods on the Mustang are just guns that fire explosive ammo, it wouldn't surprise me if you could only put the new pods on weapon hardpoints.

File: S2.png (711KB, 1280x800px) Image search: [Google]

711KB, 1280x800px

>>172839157
I don't think they will allow that. As the other anon said, that would probably be in the OP territory. Balancing that would be impossible anyway.

>>172839274
They were actually quite good. The Delta is broken beyond hell though

>>172839492
I'm just saying if you have a weapon that strikes hard enough to damage things that are relatively immune to your normal weapons, people are going to deck a Hornet out with them and obliterate small ships too.

Doesn't matter if you have to dump your ammo and can only kill 1 or 2 people. It would be infuriating to be one of those two people. When they get deleted by a rocket salvo

Besides, you can't really make them that slow and high damage because then you start pushing lighter ships into the niches that heavier ships occupy

File: WAubStC.jpg (166KB, 1917x1076px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1917x1076px

>>172838905
You have no idea.

The only question is whether they'll reload from missile pickups or ballistic pickups in AC.

What do the delta's do?

But If those largest pods are S3 pods with S1 rockets that'll be 18x4 rockets, 72 rockets will total, which I daresay will ruin the day of just about anything below a cap ship.

>>172839034
Gladius is not a dogfighter, it's a missile focused light interceptor that also has passable guns, the description is out of date, get over it.

>>172839157
Actually the rocketpods are missiles racks already. it'll be all racks, pods, fuel tanks, jammer pods, all that sort of stuff will share the "pylon" mount type.

>>172839405
>>172839612
>filenames
They're clearly S1/2/3 from left to right, but from different manufacturers. Your naming scheme confuses me.

File: 1491139077173.png (481KB, 1280x800px) Image search: [Google]

481KB, 1280x800px

Bad design triggers me.

>>172839681
>Actually the rocketpods are missiles racks already. it'll be all racks, pods, fuel tanks, jammer pods, all that sort of stuff will share the "pylon" mount type.
On the Delta they were interchangeable with guns. Swapping missile racks for rocket racks would make no sense on a bunch of ships where the missiles are concealed (Sabre) or just badly placed (Hornet).

>>172839718
They are referring to the size of rocket in the pod.

File: S3.png (676KB, 1280x800px) Image search: [Google]

676KB, 1280x800px

>>172839462
The Gladius has 2 S2 pyoln mounts.

The Gladiator has 2 S3 pylon mounts. They are not the same. If anything, the S3 pylons may be able to have a larger quantity of smaller pods, much like rockets.

>>172839718
I named them S1 - 3 because of the radius of the rocket pod holes. The orange ones are substantially larger than the blue ones, which themselves are larger than the gray/green ones.

>>172839737
The rockets will stack, I believe. 1 in front of the other.

>>172840008
much like missiles*

>>172839851
yeah but the delta is the odd ship out not the norm and its rocketpode were an early implementation hack. they're actually just a ballistic gun with really high damage and low ammo that fires a relatively slow "bullet" hence why they sat in a gun slot. Every other mention of rocket pods ever made has been as a pylon.

>>172839737
yeah the first set is various mounts sizes fire s3 rockets, second various mount size s2 rockets, third various mount sized s1 rockets.
So an S1 Pylon can launch S3 rockets but you only get three, s3/s3 gets 9.

and s3 pylon by comparison can carry 4 s1 missiles or 1 s3 missiles

>>172840008
The Gladius has 4 S3 missile hardpoints, same as the Gladiator.

>>172840008
>The rockets will stack
>>172840097
What has that got to do with anything?
These hexagonal shape pods with tonnes of wasted space is bad, from a min/max, efficiency standpoint. For the same size, and probably weight pod, you could double the ammunition capacity by simply stacking them in a square. The only reason not to do it is if you think hexagons are futuristic.

Essentially CIG went with American tacticool hexagons, instead of Russian reliability squares.

>>172839668
The idea would be to make them hard to use against small ships, obviously scaling damage vs speed with rocket size. People who joust or refuse to evade will be punished by rockets, and I am fine with that.

>>172840097
>Every other mention of rocket pods ever made has been as a pylon.
What about the rocket pods on the Harbinger turret?

File: ScreenShot0037.jpg (601KB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

601KB, 2560x1440px

>>172840008
the gladius has 4 S3 pylons, which default come loaded with a pair of S3 missiles on the inner pylons and four(2x2) s2 missiles on the outer pylonsI've reverse this in pic related, I rented a gladius for a while to see what the gladifags were whining about, they are literally just doing it wrong, trying to gunfight gunfighters in a missile fighter, I played the gladius like I play my gladiator and I did quite well. Gladius has the same wing missile load and a gladitor, hence why I insist on calling it a missile based ship, It can carr 8xS2 or 16xS1 if you want, actually a very heavy missile load for its size and cost. Whether gladiusfags like it or not the focus of the ship has been shifted to Missile interceptor.

>>172840347
Wrong reply >>172840097 meant for >>172839718

>>172839681
>Gladius is not a dogfighter

What did he mean by this

>>172840008
Your pylon count is totally wrong, try again

>>172840420
Gladius should lose two missile hardpoints and get Size 3 guns all round. That way it has lower gun damage than a fully stocked Hornet, lower missile damage than a fully stocked Gladiator, and higher gun damage than a 325a/Avenger. So in other words, exactly where it needs to be.

File: RAWKETPAWDS.jpg (173KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 800x600px

>>172840347
>Russian squares.
M8 russians are the ones that like to stick shitcrazy rocketpods on everything. Not that I dont love rocketpods, but zany oddly packed rockets are a russian thing.

File: Neuschwanstein_Castle_LOC_print_rotated.jpg (3MB, 3502x2554px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3502x2554px

>>172840098
>>172840420
>>172840553
my mistake anons, my information was outdated. I was wrong. Balancing both the Gladius and Gladiator loadout still doesn't seem like too much of an issue though. The Gladiator still has the S5 mounts in the bay.

>>172827607
>Space legs never
are we talking about ED? i don't really play the game anymore, did they confirm space legs not being implemented in ED?
i regret buying this game

File: Major-changes-on-the-battlefield-Syria-when-Russian-sent-T-90-tanks-and-artillery-battle.jpg (58KB, 480x350px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 480x350px

>>172840692
Imagine if this was hexagonal because it looked futuristic.

>>172840670
It fills a niche and is exactly where it needs to be, play it properly.

It is the only light ship with a focus on missiles. The only sub $100 fighter with multiple large pylons. If you want a gunfighter, get a bucc or a hornet. depending if you like speed or tank.

>>172840553
I mean it is objectively not anymore, It was a dogfighter 300 years ago in the Tevarin war. Then is when up against scythes and ggot cut to ribbons in dogfights, this is why the Hornet was designed and built, Its a better Gunfighter and in the current world the Gladius does not compete in a gunfight with the gun fighters. It sidesteps this lack with a heavy missile loadout, it cannot win the honorbru gun duel, so it doesnt play that game. It is a missile ship, The ONLY missile ship besides the gladiator.

>>172840842
From a big picture perspective, no. I'm sure it won't be that much of a huge issue.

It just feels wierd to me that a ship billed as a light agile fighter from the beginning all the way to like a week ago can deck itself out in as many rockets as the ship that is all about carrying heavy weapons.

>>172840945
yeah I don't give a shit about the lore, m8.

Its what its always been sold as and described as, even recently.

>>172840914
Thats ballistic artillery rockets, totally different beasty, same science, but totally different world of weapons design.

>>172840914
You think you're making a point, but you aren't

They're designed for entirely different platforms firing entirely different munitions.

This is pretty autismical anyway

>>172841037
You're missing the point.

>>172841037
It's not different. Both are rockets. One is in a rectangle shape storing ammunition efficiently, while CIG's rocket pod is 50% efficient because it's hexagonal.

>how many rockets do you want your military to take in to battle?
>let's just make 50% efficient pods so we have to replenish our forces twice as much

Square grid shapes will always be more efficient than generic hexagonal tacticool shit.

>>172841226
Final (you) because this is getting silly

square packing is most efficient but there are other considerations in play. Happy?

>>172841226
anon, CIG is making them to look cool. End of story. Look at everything they've made so far. It's all inefficient so that things can look cool or set a theme. CIG wants hexagonal pods? They'll have hexagonal pods. Your whining will not change that.

>>172841003
Fuck you are stubbornly dense, Im not talkign about what Ben fucking says it does, ben is a fucking retarded cheese vacuum. I am talking about the reality of the meta. Missiles is how the gladius can compete, It has a niche in whcih it does well "Fast Agile Missile Fighter" where the Gladiator is "Fat Heavy Missile Fighter" and the Hornets are "Tanky Slow Gunfighter" the Sabre "Fast Agile Hybrid Fighter" and the Bucc is now "Fast Agile Gun Fighter"

I am not talking about how it is described, I am talking about what it is you retarded monkey

And It cannot deck itself out with as many rockets, the gladiator has a pair of S6 hardpoints in the belly, which the gladius lacks. as well as a Superior gun loadout.

And the lore actually explains all this. It explains how the gladius has been upgraded to compete in the modern arena, By adding a fucking heavy missile loadout to it you dense self righteous twat.

>>172841442
Oh, you're talking how it performs right now.

Like a retard.

what's the playercap programmed for a single SC server?
I used to play PS2 and M&B because large player battles are a fetish of mine

>>172841586
I think the PU is high 20s or low 30s right now, so not great. Long term, the plan is to push this up and up with some pretty crazy server technology and AWS.

They have said that the limiting factor will be how many ships/players the average client can render without dying.

if rocket pods can replace missiles on pylons, who will ever choose missiles

File: dat.jpg (286KB, 899x1367px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 899x1367px

>>172841586
Right now its 24.

Eventually it will be bigger than PS2. However when that will actually happen is up in the air, much depends on a network rebuild that is the current big project/roadblock to further development.

I am also a giant PS2 nerd and half the reasons I backed SC was that it will be fulfilling all the stuff SC lacks even though it will not be providing the "mass combat" angle as often or as easily. There will however be ground combat and at least some for of player basebuilding and territory control on planets.

SC in lawless space is very likely to be Planetside3.

>>172841506
The ships aren't somehow going to entirely change to suit your headcanon, Ben.

>>172841834
Some ships won't get a choice. It's hard to see how the Size 3 pods will fit anywhere on the Sabre, and even on the Hornet they might be a bit tall for the wing mounts.

File: 1466720052168.jpg (127KB, 525x469px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 525x469px

>>172841834
>if dumbfire unguided munition can replace guided munition who will ever choose guided munition
just gimme torpedos

>>172841943
>vanu

>>172841834
Its almost like this forces CIG to actually implement proper missle mechanics rather than swinging between "never hits shit" and "impossible to evade" every other patch and make them skillbased.

My only hope is that it is more in depth than the golf swing bullshit

>>172841975
>Implying its only Ben saying this
>Implying that they can't do whatever the fuck they want with a made up game world running on their own rules

>>172841834
People who want flexibility and also people who want to nail mid sized fighters.

Rockets are for ground targets and targets larger and less maneuverable than you. Hitting a small agile targets with rockets is both hard and unreliable and you are likely to just end up wasting your ammo, You could kill a Glaive with with a single S2 missile that you might waste a dozen rockets trying to hit. Additionally rockets behave like guns, but have a much lower velocity, meaning that if youre lining up rockets on a fast target your guns are almost certainly off target, forcing you to choose between your weapons. The same is not the case with a guided missile.

>>172842167
If we're talking PvP, you're not going to hit small agile targets with missiles full stop unless they are terrible pilots.

File: hue.png (53KB, 753x308px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 753x308px

>>172842067
I actually play NC.
I just can't get enough Female spandex butt.

>>172842242
Or your patient and catch them flat footed. I kill plennty of objectively good game winning pilots with my gladiator and I only use its guns to finish off cripples. Missile gameplay is 100% a matter of timing. If you just agressively spam they will simply bolt to the other side of the arena on burner and there is nothing you can do about it, but if you get them to chase you decouple, strafe in thre directions to avoid fire and fire straight down their pursuit vector they're almost always just fucked, the closing velocity is too fast for all but the best, and even with them its 50/50

>>172842067
>>172842167
Missiles, while guided, have the ability to miss, or be countered with some kind of flare or otherwise. Rockets, on the other hand, will be entirely based on your ability to aim pips, as is the current case.

With that in mind, when the rocket pod options are available, I will never choose a missile ever again. They will become an amazing dogfighting aid. There's literally no reason to potentially waste a missile because of it simply missing or being flared or jammed.

>>172842087
>Its almost like this forces CIG to actually implement proper missle mechanics
A really easy fix would be to give missiles a fairly limited vision cone, and have the missile share data with the ship that launched it.

So if missile has line of sight to target then it's good. If it does not, then being able to see the launch ship gives it a good chance of reacquiring its target. By "line of sight" here I don't just mean an unobstructed path, I mean that the target ship needs to be in the launching ship's crosshairs as if there is a powerful forward-facing radar.

If it has no line of sight to target or launcher, it would have to look for the target itself, which would be very inefficient.

The bonus of this system is that some ships (Gladiator, Retaliator) would be able to use turret gunners to guide missiles in, so that the pilot can evade properly instead of flying towards the enemy.

>>172842667
Kill yourself, we've moved on from your autistic discussion, and even agreed with your basic premise, despite you being incapable of conceeding there may be more at play than simple packing efficiency.

>>172842626
Thats easy, but I'd prefer they tie into sensor mechanics (active/passive) like they promised. SARH missiles like you're describing would be a good missile type, but preferably not the only one available.

>>172842540
CS missiles cannot be flared or jammed, yet at least, they take the longest to lock but once you lock them its either evade them, sprint or die.

I would again reiterate that while I am not 1337, I am one of the better FFA pilots playing right now and I do know what Im talking about, you're telling me that a thing I do literally every match in AC doesn't work. I always place top 3 or 4, I win pretty often and I kill Good, competent known pilots in tryhard dogfighter SH/Sabre only orgs every match. The only ship I have real trouble missiling to death is the M50, cus it cann literally run circles around the missiles.

>>172842885
Thats not even what that anon meant by stack, just so you know.

But continue to be illiterate, and stupid.

>>172841586
SM is up to 30, I think they raised crusader's as well, ignore these other low info chuds

Aren't SC ships supposed to be able to seamlessly fly through atmospheres as well? Doesn't make sense to put xboxhuge squares on your ship if that's the case.

>>172843189
It doesn't matter what the player count is if the framerate is a slideshow. Framerate aside, all the guns I give a shit about playing with don't work in online mode. On top of that SM is even more unplayable than before, thanks to the significant drop in framerate and wild swings in performance.

GG more players, too bad the game is a dumpster fire as a result.

>>172843490
Are hexagons more aerodynamic?

>>172843490
All ships are capable or static hover via mav thrusters alone, Aerodynamics will effect how well a craft handles in atmo and the ones that are more spaceplaney will be better suited to combat maneuvering.

Re-entry heating is dealt with by the shields not the aerodynamics or materials of the ship itself. The bigger boxier ships will probably have it easiest flying straight up into space and flying around the planet to drop in again than flying point to point in atmo.

>>172843536
that's nice goon. he asked about player count. no one asked you anything.

File: michael-lomonosov-desert.jpg (294KB, 1300x857px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 1300x857px

I've been eying star citizen since it came out, got a decent job this summer to save up and build a good pc.

Is this game worth buying into yet?

>>172843613

I'm guessing... yes?

>>172843678

So the boxy shape can be explained by a practical concern.

>>172843783
I'm not a goon you windows licking retard. The game is objectively worse than last patch, pointing out that player counts are higher while leaving out all the negative shit from this patch is cultish as fuck.

>>172843613
and yes in point of fact they are. rectangles cause heinous amounts of aerodynamic drag and turbulence. hence why they are always angled off or rounded out in airframes. Find me an aircraft designed to operate at high speeds which has a flat forward facing rectangles. Intakes may often have a rectangular profile, but that profile is always raked radically backwards or its most aerodynamically exposed edge is rounded.

File: 07ef09_4f0f81d04e70430b8c22ec9b75798c4d.jpg_srz_567_414_85_22_0.50_1.20_0.jpg (75KB, 567x414px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 567x414px

>literally arguing about shapes

>>172843889
Not yet. 3.0 will be make or break and thats a few months out at least.

>>172843536
what is this 'online mode' and 'single player' you keep referring to? there is no mode that is not online, nor one that is single player. I suppose you could do AC swarms alone, but they are functionally identical to co op.

File: fountain.jpg (3MB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2048x1536px

>>172842842
Missiles aren't useless, don't get me wrong. I'm saying that, with the advent of rocketpods, they will simply be inferior. Worrying about cross section, flares, or jamming is no longer a factor when you can take direct control of where your explosives will go because of lead/lag pips. Even if each individual rocket is half or even a quater as powerful as missiles of equal size, you still don't run any of the risks associated, if you are a good (or even a decent) shot, and you'd still have a higher volume available. And, against a larger ship like a Cat, SF, or otherwise, you can choose exactly where you want your explosives to hit.

>>172843983
>I suppose you could do AC swarms alone, but they are functionally identical to co op.

Completely wrong, amigo

Playing free flight or solo VS / PS will get you the best frames possible, whereas you will get less and less performance the more people join in "online" modes.

You can even see they're functionally different in weapons performance too. The shotgun weapon didn't work AT ALL in co-op / pvp modes but functioned fine in solo.

>>172843983
single player PS and VS are drastically different as far as how the guns perform. If you have ballistic guns, try it. You will be OP as fuck. The C-788 and Pyroburst specifically don't work online, but work in single player. There are other guns I suspect, but I haven't tested the whole arsenal.

>>172843913
go pay your ten bucks then you sky is falling fuckwit.

>hey how much for a coffee?
>$3
>you didn't warn him about how SHITTY I think the coffee is here! COFFEE CULTIST

>>172844125
some guy was posting his pyroburst bucc loadout and saying it was so op he was sure it would get nerfed, he was talking specifically about pvp

>so the reason you made inefficient weapons was because of aerodynamics?
>sure let's go with that reason
Man, hexagons are so futuristic.

File: blammo.webm (3MB, 710x400px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 710x400px

>>172844232
Yeah, that was me. Pic related is the single player performance. Same loadout online only registers the neutron cannon hits. When I posted that originally, I was running though several loadouts in single player only to find out that neutron cannons are the only thing that hits correctly and are accurate when online.

>>172844361
holy shit you are autistic, it's one of multiple designs and equivalent to currently existing ones.

>>172844361
Man you really are fucking triggered aren't you

>>172844000
You're oversimplifying what is a very complicated comparison. Against a large, static, or predicatble target yes rockets will offer greater bang for the buck, Precisely why I I am looking forward to plastering them all over my gladiator. But against an agile target actively maneuvering to specifically avoid incoming fire they will be challenging to land hits with, and the low ammo count/high damage loss per miss will be particularly punishing, they behave like a particularly low velocity ballistic with a particularly low ammo count. This is not to say you cannot hit with them, but if you are trying to hit with them against a fast target, your guns will be out of alignment, meaning you are relying on them entirely, and if you miss, you deal no damage at all. They're a high risk high reward weapon and unlike a missile if the target changes course they cannot adjust, you have to fire again and your first volley is just lost. The missile, in particular the larger meaner missiles can come around for another go. Stalker 5s in particular will sometimes chase a target for 20 or 30 seconds and 15km and then give me a kill.

>>172844232
>>172844418
Haven't tried the Pyronurst but can confirm that in MP the ballistic cannon doesn't work.

Which is probably a good thing desu, it is pretty bullshit.

>>172844716
I have a feeling the 11 series Broadsword and GT870 mkIII are the same, but I don't have the RECor motivation to test them thoroughly. The best thing to do is test your loadout in single player PS, then try the PU or AC and see if it performs the same.

>>172844980
Hit detection is slightly wonky, but the Pyroburst and Combine are by far the worst offenders. They rarely, if ever, score a shit.

Unlike stuff like the 11-Series which might drop one occasionally.

>>172844980
The Longsword, Broadsword and both Tarantulas all work fine in MP as far as I can tell.

File: TestRend.png (192KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 960x540px

>>172844572
Obviously you wouldn't try to rocket down an M50 or Gladius since they are small, fast targets, but even for missiles those ships are hard to hit, and they have built-in counters. But those aren't the majority of targets you'll be aiming rockets at. Ships like Sabres, Vanguards, Hornets, Avengers, Gladiators, and eventually Redeemers and that new heavy fighter, including even larger ships like Constellations, Freelancers, Cutlasses, and essentially any vehicle larger than that will be prime targets for rockets, and once again, you have the choice of where they hit on those larger vehicles, whether it be a turret, an engine, a cockpit, whatever.

Much like you wouldn't waste a missile on a iffy shot, the same can be applied to rockets for any vehicle. Nobody in their right mind will spam rockets at a ship 2km away, that's maneuvering like a madman. Same as literally any other weapon, you'd close the gap to ensure the highest chance of success, and rockets will undoubtably be the better option for that because of the dumbfire aspect, and everything else I've mentioned. Stalkers and much larger ordinance is an outlier though. Rockets aren't torps so they're outclassed in that department, but even then you won't be seeing a lot of those. I simply want rockets as what they are likely to be, and that's a dogfighting aid that I'm in full control of, and they seem like they'll fit that role very well.

File: 1484392951595.jpg (1MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3840x2160px

>>172843536
In theory SC have no reason to become a slideshow like EVE Online
CIG planned from the start for the MMO to have a limited number of players per instances.
The limitation will certainly be how many capital ship can be shown at once, and like other game the game change the quality of models depending on range.

>>172843913
You should know that the new networking frame will only be added from 3.0, wait until then.

Does anyone know if the Super Hornet is keeping its extra missile mounts? I assumed that was a bug, as it appeared in one of the 2.6.1 PTU patches I think, but they kept them in the 2.6.1 release.

>>172845760
They've already added some of the new networking stuff, anon. But clearly it wasn't the major culprit in why frames are in the toilet

>>172845864
It has the same mounts as the regular F7C. 2 S3 and 2 S2.

File: C8WB4pVVwAE0SpC.jpg large.jpg (128KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 1600x900px

So did they ever say what engine they were using?
It looks like they did more than just drop some models in Unity for a giggle.

>>172845878
Are you referring to the megamap? That doesn't change framerate, it changes loading times, and even then it's currently relegated to SM.

if not that, what new networking stuff are you referring to?

>>172845760
I think it's dishonest to call this an improvement though. If you watch frametimes, you are effectively seeing the delay between packets in the PU. Lags from players joining and lags during qt are 4-5 seconds of desync. The dips from npcs spawning and the reduction in fps as players scale is much more pronounced than before.

I could accept that the old launcher was the culprit if the same frametime problems didn't extend to SM and AC. This mix of client side and server side they are trying isn't working, and this what has been delayed since Dec.

>>172845994
Network Message Ordering was in 2.6.1, Serialized Variables was in 2.6.2.

They said they were putting Network Culling in 2.6.0 but apparently thats evaporated off the face of the planet

>>172842842 >>172844572 >>172844572
Your logic only stand if your Kill ratio (depending of target) with rockets-loadout is superior than with missiles.
Since I doubt CIG will let missile go with less than a 50% kill ratio, your boast of never using missiles ever again only sound stupid.

I don't see why you keep posting on that until the game is out with all mechanic supposedly balanced.

File: ScreenShot0536.jpg (481KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

481KB, 1920x1080px

>>172845864
It would be more interesting to know whether the Sabre keeps its S4 missile mounts, because that was the one thing the Gladius was obviously superior in until they upped the hardpoints from S3 to S4 in some recent patch.

>>172845760
>CIG planned from the start for the MMO to have a limited number of players per instances
Yeah but then E:D happened

>>172846264
Did you just have a stroke?

Am I the only one who's going to be pissed as fuck if we dont see 3.0 before august? Seems like the RSI forums are totally fine with 3.0 not releasing before Q4.

>>172846723
Probably not, but the true pactrician move is to not expect anything to happen and be pleasantly surprised when it does

>>172846287
I assume that the Sabre will keep those.

It originally had two racks, each with 3 x Size 2 missiles. To keep this in the new system they would have needed to give it 6 x Size 2 racks, which probably was just retarded. So rather than downgrading to 4 x Size 2 missiles on 2 x Size 3 racks, they bumped it up to the equivalent of 8 x Size 2 missiles on 2 x Size 4 racks.

File: 1476121878213.jpg (651KB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

651KB, 3840x2160px

>>172845878 >>172846180
Adding some code don't mean having the tremendous 400% improvement you can see after a complete infrastructure was completed. Some stuff can't be added "little by little".
Aside, if they did improved stuff while simultaneously introducing new hungry elements to test you would miss it.

They explained what they needed to do to solve the problem and When it will happen 3.0, assuming good faith you are forced to trust them, unless you are yourself a game designer you can't argue that their time isn't being used right by rebuilding entirely the networking until it can be used.

It's as if you played early AC and asked them to expand it until it became 2.0

File: autism.png (258KB, 640x568px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 640x568px

oc meme coming through

File: vg, a magical place.jpg (571KB, 1000x811px) Image search: [Google]

571KB, 1000x811px

>>172846723
Hard to say.

On one hand, I really want 3.0 NOW.

On the other hand, 3.0 is perhaps the biggest thing for SC. It will draw lots of attention and if it's absolutely fucked, it would be really bad for the games future.

On my nebulous third hand, I expect a 2.7, 2.8, and 2.9 patch. With everything they say will be in 3.0, efficiently testing that and fixing bugs would be horrific. They might as well break it up into smaller but still significant pieces, like planets for 2.7, new asteroids and mining for 2.8, landing zones and locations for 2.9, and then AI and new missions/trading for 3.0. This is objectively a better idea than a fuckhuge, broken ass patch that will take months to fix and make the game look worse than it does.

>>172846287
Wasn't there a problem with missiles too big for the bays?

File: ScreenShot0537.jpg (237KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 1920x1080px

>>172847294
Yes.

>>172847334
Oh, they finally fixed the spelling. It used to be "Ordinance".

>>172847149
Spicy and obscure, I like it

>>172847334
Ouch. At least they can just recess the inside of the bay a little bit, it's not like they have to seriously change it. They could even just change it so that the mount clips with the inside of the bay instead, as that would be basically unnoticeable.

>>172846839
This, keeping your expectations low (or even very pessimistic) is the only smart way to play this waiting game.

>>172846723
I used to care about that, now I just want to see CIG make the current Crusader system we have with the new tech that all the star systems will be built with, and demonstrate that they are capable of delivering 3.0. A tiny Crusader system should run like a bat out of hell on the new tech if they expect to hit the scale they are trying. This current patch is very disheartening.

>>172847016
>It's as if you played early AC and asked them to expand it until it became 2.0

I've played since the dogfighting module, and the game has mostly gotten better with each patch, until this patch. There is nothing you can point to that demonstrates an improvement to the game performance or user experience, aside from the screens in PO working better.

>>172846723
3.0 won't be out any time soon. I'm highly skeptical of Squadron 42 making a 2017 release.

Bottom line is that 3.0 needs the new netcode and that's not ready yet. It's probably not even close to ready yet. Squadron 42 needs the AI stuff to be finished, and it's not finished.

So what is the latest rumor on the 3.0 blockers? AI, item 2.0, network, animations, landing?

>>172849614
Item 2.0 should be mostly done, AI should be good enough by now, animations should be about good enough, the netcode rework seems to be like the major blocker.

>>172849752
>>172849614
It's more than blockers there is a huge amount of new content to make

>>172849614
They haven't released the 3.0 schedule yet, but its a massive patch and could be any number of things, really.

Once 3.0 is out the game will be less of a tech demo and actually more of a full fledged basic game, from the sounds of things. I imagine that takes everything working together.

>>172849614
AI: still being worked on, it looks like.

Animations: supposedly much better now

Network: the big one, I don't think this one's even close to ready.

Landing: I don't even know what they're working on with that or how it's a blocker

File: 1456341171242.png (622KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

622KB, 800x600px

>>172849462
Squadron 42 WILL NOT release this year. Bottom line.

Did you watch the latest ATV? They said "We are almost done with Vanduul character skinning, so now our animators can work on their animations". The vanduul, an instrumental part of Sq42, don't even have animations yet. They aren't ready. And, on top of that, a lot of the core elements, like their advanced AI, don't seem to be even close. It's really worrying.

>>172849614
Just assume anything that CIG says regarding release is n.

So let n = 3months

n = 6months (n3 + PTU test length) (2 weeks + Evocati test length)

We're already years late. 3.0 is at least 6 months late itself. Star Marine was like 14 months late.

>>172850057
I won't say never, because it's my understanding that they have a tremendous amount of the content assets done already for SQ42 and the game does have functional flight AI.

I mean realistically, they absolutely could release the game this year if they just decided to pare back a little bit and release the game that I fucking backed originally.

But yeah, it looks unlikely. Basically the worst case scenario that I predicted several years ago is going to come to pass with this game. We'll get the game, and it will be cool, but it's gonna be stuck in development hell until they run out of money and finally nut up and finish what they've got.

>>172849916
>>172849614
Content was supposed to be all of the Stanton landing zones, plus Delmar. That was before procedural planets, so I think we'll get Delmar and some barren planets/moons for missions.

As 3.0 now includes mining they need to get the Prospector done. I personally think that one of the main blockers is getting basic versions of mining and cargo in the game.

Item 2.0 has to be done by now, my guess is that they are just cleaning up the UI (seen in ATV recently) and making sure that the older ships etc. have "good enough" implementations.

Animations for 3.0 should be done, I can't imagine that they need many more animations than there are in 2.6.2, unless they plan to add things like the medical system etc. The Dragonfly is finished so any animations for that are done.

Network is impossible to guess. Serialised variable and container streaming came in 2.6.2 with literally no benefit to the PU, so I don't know what is going on there.

I also imagine that they want their new patching tech running for 3.0, so they can deploy hotfixes.

>>172850057
They're producing it episodically, right?

Does the first episode have to include heavy amounts of animation work for Vandildo boarding? Could be pretty damn flight heavy and probably is. I don't see that being a particularlly big blocker.

File: 1466647105973.jpg (567KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

567KB, 1920x1080px

>>172850275
Samefag here

I don't think SC is in development hell. They aren't falling apart with several studios accidentally making different things that won't work together (Illfonic...), but the thing is, they just have a lot to work on. My biggest gripe so far is that they're working on Sq42 and the PU at the same time. I acknowledge that they share assets, of course, but Star Citizen will outlive the single player aspect. It will be larger with more content like careers and non-linear progression. They should've made the PU first, and then use those assets, and create whichever new ones they need, and make a single player.

I want Sq42 to get out of the way, but at this rate we still have a 1.5 years minimum.

>run out of money
That's certainly not happening.

>>172851117
Yes. Episode 1 deals in the vanduul. I hope that after they release Ep 1, they move all resources to the PU.

>>172850626
Mining isn't going to be a big blocker, trading will be it, because its central to everything and involves half the ships they have. It's a huge task and will fundamentally change the game more than anything since 2.0 dropping has, and more than anything will until release.

>>172851279
They're different teams, to begin with.

But I know EP1 deals with Vandildos. Its how much animating them really matters. I doubt you're really going to have a lot of FPS gameplay.

>>172851279
I backed for Squadron 42 so I'm starting to get pretty annoyed.

I get that AAAAAAAA titles take forever to make, and that 5 years is pretty much normal, but I really didn't need all the bells and whistles for the damn single player. I don't give a fuck if the NPCs look awkward when they sit down at a table.

>>172851503
Cr does give a fuck and it's his project. He told you this at the very beginning and has repeated it often since. He is making the game he wants to make not the game every backer has in their head and certainly not on the "when I want it" schedule.

Any Vanguard Harbinger bulls here?

Got a nice little Hull B aswell and my friends have a Gladiator+Super Hornet.

File: 1490170353830.jpg (54KB, 305x309px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 305x309px

>>172851503
I'm sure CIG is not about to rush out some half baked animations. They always wanted good quality, but I bet MEA reaffirmed that point in a big way.

>>172851503
>I don't give a fuck if the NPCs look awkward when they sit down at a table.
>inb4 REEEEEEEEEEE 200 gorillion dollars and they can't even make animations look right REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

You would give a fuck if it was like that and you know it.

>>172851993
Got the base and the valentine upgrade from my gf because she thought it was hilarious, apparently

>>172851503
Motherfucker, you think it's just you? Relatively recent titles that were lazy in their art and animation departments are getting shit on because of this. If Sq42 releases as a train wreck, this game and all of our backer money is wasted, and that would kill crowdfunded games if the biggest one flopped hard.

Please fuck off.

>>172852040
Personally, I really don't care about idle / background NPC animations on the ship.

I'd go as far as to say that's the kind of thing you can easily work around by just putting the characters at the table when the scene loads instead of having everyone on a schedule. I really don't feel that a mission based single player space sim needs NPC schedules.

I can look forward to the finished product while questioning some of the details, you know.

File: ScreenShot0060.jpg (475KB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

475KB, 2560x1440px

play AC you massive gays.

>>172852658
you are desynced from the other players you gay homosexual. check the top issue on the issue council right now

What the fuck were the Evocati doing this whole time? This desync problem has been an issue since 2.6.2a and it is just now the top issue?

Was everyone literally just playing SM and not flying ships at all?

File: 1471483152139.webm (3MB, 1066x602px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1066x602px

>>172853470
maybe

File: 1476995215547.jpg (3MB, 3834x2160px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3834x2160px

>>172847613
>I've played since the dogfighting module, and the game has mostly gotten better with each patch, until this patch. There is nothing you can point to that demonstrates an improvement to the game performance or user experience, aside from the screens in PO working better.

There's nothing you can point out that demonstrate you were entitled to see specific change, they use 2.6.2 to test out whatever they want. From Flight-model to Star Marines, they are even totally justified in not wasting their time on what is in technical term a FORK of what they really work on.

So stop being an entitled crybaby, they've got disclaimer up the wazoo telling you to not expect the full game experience during the Alpha stage. The only ones who could criticize them are game devs making equally big game. No Derek, you're out.

>>172850275
A game of this scope take more than 4 years to make. You can blame CR for not making it clear and failing its own date, but anybody with a clue will be ecstatic if the game release in 6 years

>>172855061
>they use 2.6.2 to test out whatever they want.
I'm sure tanking framerates in all modes and making ship combat almost impossible was their aim with this patch.

Pointing out that the game plays worse and performs worse is not being an entitled crybaby. No one is claiming that they aren't delivering the full experience. Worse framerate and severe desync are not opinions, they are facts.

>>172855061
>they use 2.6.2 to test out whatever they want. From Flight-model to Star Marines

With the current framerate and performance, testing anything is borderline impossible.

>>172855430
I have better performance in Star Marine than in the last patch.

Not night and day better, but a little better.

>>172851389
Yes, they're different teams, but what if it were a single, massive team working towards the PU?

I know it's whiny, but knowing the progress that could have been on the PU front, it makes me salty.

>>172857027
yeah, I have literally only seen performance complaints itt. I intend to look at reddit and see if there's any merit to it,but currently it just looks like salty goons.

>>172858558
I know this is bait, but I actually agree with you. Go to the hugbox and look for 2.6.2 performance threads. Even the cultists are having trouble.

>>172858339
>but what if it were a single, massive team working towards the PU?

More cooks..

>>172858843
More like croberts cant delegate to such a big team

>>172858780
>>172858558
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/630nm1/did_262_improve_the_star_marine_lag_any/

the response is all over the fucking map. seems like the optimisations weren't universal and improved for some, but got worse for others.

>>172859224
That doesn't even make sense

>>172859296
I've noticed marginally worse performance in AC and PU, but nothing drastic. Was hoping for a boost to make PU playable, but that has not happened at all.

>>172858558
2.6.1 had unplayable stuttering/freezing for me. 2.6.2 is not great, but pretty OK

>>172859303
It does, because croberts has to have every little detail run through him for fidelity approval.

>>172860105
Okay?

Even if that was true, why would it matter if they were working on SQ42 or something else? He's involved with both projects, so the invasive micromanagement that is apparently happening wouldn't increase or decrease.

Shitpost elsewhere, goonie

>>172860328
It cant increase becuase croberts is the bottleneck

>>172860561
It must be hard living with illiteracy

>>172861226
I agree. How ever do you manage?

i'm trying to run star citizen but it keeps crashing
i know it works on wine so I was trying wine on my galaxy s8. the game gets half way in before it crashes, are they gonna patch this?

>>172840553
>What did he mean by this
Gunfags like to think using missiles doesn't make you a dogfighter because they're autistic cry babies who's flight style is incapable of dealing with missiles. Don't listen to them.

>>172865705
Missiles shouldn't largely be a dogfighting tool though

>>172858843
>more cooks

not applicable. Look at any other game development - one team, one overhead goal.

>>172866535
Thats patently untrue to begin with, and oversimplifying shit as well.

>>172835606

Youre either a troll, or a very fucking stupid person.

>>172866642
Whatever, anon. I'm just a saltanon that wants his PU to make major progression.

>>172845878
All they added was support for serial variables, which is a way to make sure only information that changes is shared over the network. However, they only just added engine support for it. They have to modify everything to use it.

>>172847262
I honestly want the thrid one for the reasons you mentioned. They also need to update to delta patching soon, so updates aren't as big of a deal and they can drop patches more rapidly, and iterate more.

>>172867421
Doesn't say that at all in the patch notes, and there was something else in 2.6.1 that I mentioned too.

>>172850626
>Serialised variable and container streaming came in 2.6.2 with literally no benefit to the PU, so I don't know what is going on there.
They finished the system, but everything has to be redone to make use of it. SO they added support in 2.6.2, but none of the current assets had been changed to utilize it.

>>172866958
You haven't given a valid reason either.

I notice a pattern where all the people who disagree with me are aggressive shitposters who don't provide any argument. Their posts are just emotional reasoning and "it is like how it is so just deal with it". You may as well not even respond, since your posts are all worthless.

File: 1450386296231.png (224KB, 413x413px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 413x413px

>>172868814
>all the people who disagree with me are aggressive shitposters

>>172865495
>trying to play the definitive PC master race game via WINE on your phone
no, they will not be patching this. I think the problem is on your end.

>>172846287
>Bomb bay doors for missiles

They're in space. There's no gravity to pull them down before their rockets engage and hurl them forward into the fuselage, and I don't see any lateral thrusters on them.

File: ORD_F-22_Sidewinder_Launcher_lg.jpg (82KB, 800x484px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 800x484px

>>172875705
This is autism but internal weapons stowage is for lower signature, and there are plenty of ways of ejecting a hot-launch munition from a cold rail.

They would also of COURSE have thrusters all over them, because they're missiles designed for use in space. Without RCS, they've got little to no way of turning outside of thrust vectoring, which wouldn't be great.

>>172875976

Except the missile models don't have thrusters. They have fins, which would be useless in vacuum and take up space you could use to fit some more missiles.

>>172866018
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-to-air_missile#Dogfight

>>172876245
>Except the missile models don't have thrusters.

They do. Every single one of them does.

>>172867902
It was on an AtV or something.

What serialized variables changed was previously designers had to hard code what information should be communicated and when, leading to oversights. Serialized variables is a system that lets them essentially just flag something as needing to be communicated, and the underlying system will determine whether it needs to be communicated based on if it's changed.

>>172876610
"Shouldn't" and "aren't" are very different amigo

File: tmp_17450-1471560149043-11738004062.jpg (515KB, 810x1014px) Image search: [Google]

515KB, 810x1014px

*blocks your path*

>>172878591
>side step around him.
>he desyncs and doesn't react for 6 seconds
>takes 14 hours for him to d/l new 5TB patch with 2MB of new data before he can move again
no problem with that.

>>172877176
But missiles are a large part of air-to-air combat, and should be, and have been since their invention, you piece of shit. They're an effective tool because they can lock on and track an opponent when guns may not be effective, and they're accordingly an effective tool in SC dogfighting, as evidenced by the massive butthurt among people who refuse to acknowledge their existence in their flight style and literally get blown the fuck out because of it.

File: tenor.gif (982KB, 320x180px) Image search: [Google]

982KB, 320x180px

>>172879104

>>172879223
Not as triggered as butthurt SH fags wondering why they get wrecked by missiles at 200m while strafing.

>>172879104
Why are you so exceedly upset about something I never even said, autismbro?

Do you realize now that normal developer wouldn't release a "patch" which actually degrades performance? Normal development aims to create better versions each time they are released to end users.

>>172879104

Not all air-to-air combat is dogfighting. Missiles are normally used at long range and not while the fighters are twisting around each other and unloading guns in an actual dogfight.

>donate 56 units of consumer technology to aid in civil war
>in the middle of a bloody civil war, guns and medical supplies desperately needed
>ask for iPhones instead

>>172879605
>they are released to end users
People playing SC right now are in no way end users. They're hardly alpha testers. The game is effectively pre-alpha until at least 3.0. Especially at this stage in the development cycle, software development regularly goes through versions where some things break as a consequence of some new feature or refactoring (like where SC is at right now) being introduced that will make the end result better.

>>172879742
Dogfighting like that doesn't even exist anymore, nor would it in space realistically. Missiles have been the primary weapon in air-to-air combat since Vietnam. People complaining about missiles in SC are just butthurt because they fly like sitting ducks for missiles, and then try to shame people for taking them out without having to engage close range.

File: 20170402155701_1.jpg (348KB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 2560x1440px

uguu~

>>172880897
Just one long triggered ramble that doesn't even make sense, final (you)

>>172881105
t. butthurt SH backer

Nice talking to you, have fun getting blown up by missiles and bitching about it.

>/scg/ spend half the thread autistically nitpicking

To be fair, it wouldn't surprise me if Derek Smart himself was behind a lot of the more stupid posts.

>>172882186

Would DS be for or against missiles?

>>172880001
Oh wow you are truly brainwashed Star Citizen. Good luck! I recommend you buy few ships to support Chris, he needs more money to buy new leather bound office chair.

>>172882257

Against SC missiles if they worked, for if they were bugged or non-functional in any way.

>>172883314
I actually haven't spent any money on the game, because I hardly consider it in alpha. They're rewriting most of CryEngine at this point. Anytime something of this scale is done, you don't see it. The only reason they're pushing crap out right now is because it's crowdfunded, but the game is not being pushed to end users, nor are they in a place where each version is necessarily better than the last. That's just how software development goes this early on. Sometimes you have to refactor systems and things break or get worse before they get better. Normally, end users wouldn't see this part of the production cycle. If you bought the game expecting it to be in a playable state and development to be smooth sailing content additions and minor revisions where everything always improves, you're bigger retard than the people dropping five figures on it. If you want to back the game great, but don't fool yourself into thinking it should be playable at this point. Playing a game this early in the production cycle is an anomaly; you can't compare it to how other game companies release patches because other companies don't release things until after they're done with all the refactoring and core development. Right now CIG is literally in the middle of refactoring the CryEngine (Lumberyard) netcode, level loading system, physics system, AI, and probably other things too. If you think a product in that state of development is going to be stable and improve at every version, you're a fucking retard.

File: 20170402152457_1.jpg (468KB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

468KB, 2560x1440px

which playable ship is the best /scg/?

those fucking fighters sure are crazy to the likes of my andromeda tub

>>172884201
I thought they already refactored everything at least once? Why they keep doing it? Cryengine is supposed to be very good but apparently...

Netcode is going to be problematic until the end because they don't have a proper mechanics in place. They don't know what they need for netcode until they have a working framework. They should really be focusing on this first before anything.

I think the idea of "modules" is just stupid because in order to develop huge software you need a real specification and plan for it, it doesn't matter if it's a game, operating system or 3d software... anything.

>>172886682
First you need to build working world model and make a plan and basic scheme how everything communicates between each and every element.

For example world of warcraft used some shitty models in place before they had a working game because they were implementing how the world actually communicates and how players communicate between the world etc.

The whole development of Star Citizen is done backwards because they have been doing nice assets and then doing shit demo by the last minute they need to show something.

I'd be excited if they had footage about how their MMO universe is shaping together. Make a working frame by using just fucking colored cubes to represent different items. That's the most important thing in online persistent game, the world framework. Not to tinker with individual "ships" and "graphics"...

>>172885693
If the fucking snub fighter actually worked I'd probably say the Connie is the best.

File: WkD8Fyd[1].gif (2MB, 636x288px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 636x288px

>>172875705
>missiles in space steer with small RCS ports
>they aren't used to eject the missile from the rail
>ejectors don't exist either

the timing and thrust needed isn't even considerable either

>>172888761
I was saying this months ago, I think I got laughed at.

I said throw some cubes in to Arena Commander with engines attached to them, then you can sort the flight model out. But instead we've had years of designing bad ships and then refactoring them and trying to balance them in minor patches.

>>172888761
art and animation assets can always be redone and improved, but, gameplay is forever

>>172889164
Well good thing they're not only redoing art and animation, but also not showing any progress of gameplay systems at the same time!

File: Torpedo_MissileEvolution.jpg (102KB, 560x877px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 560x877px

Class 4 Torpedoes when Frontier
I want to drop thermonuclear payloads on people.

File: State - Civil War.jpg (26KB, 575x291px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 575x291px

>mfw Quince back at war

File: nrvWfYt[1].jpg (856KB, 2500x1434px) Image search: [Google]

856KB, 2500x1434px

cannot unsee

>>172894152
what for? The whole ship is supposed to be able to land unlike the endeavor

>>172834943

>A cheap freighter

Piracy they say lol

>Reliant Tana or Avenger Titan for vulture strikes/ninja salvaging in hostile areas?

If you get into one of those free flight periods and farm UEC, can you use it later for ships to get in the game without a pledge?

>>172892780
Fuck man I need money before they need the shit into the ground but I have no desire to grind that stupid shit anymore.

On another note what's the ETA on actual content and gameplay in terms of trading and smuggling in SC. Im getting tired of EDs fucking just playing with numbers and no substance game here.

>>172894801
gunboat reclaimer instead?

in tandem with a more straight-forward killcraft you might find success

>>172894935
Nope.

>>172892780
>Not calling your ship Papa Dragon once shill naming is out

>>172894801
>he thinks he'll get a good haul in a tiny ass vessel like those
>he even mentions the R*liant

Just get a cutlass. Best bang for your buck at that size, apparently will have tractor beams, and has a decent turret. Size upgrade will help. Outclasses the Avenger by far, and isn't even comparable to the R*liant.

>>172890935
How would one even balance a huge torpedo mount? It's a 16 ton torpedo, like shooting a hauler (14t hull) loaded with explosives at someone. Yeah, it should vaporize anything short of one of the big 3 in one hit but then what?

Right now there's no target in the game that is sturdy enough to warrant such a big missile, unless FDev puts in Frigate/Destroyer sized npc ships to shoot at.

File: 1476240508791.jpg (28KB, 604x438px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 604x438px

>>172903275
Why do you not like the practical and totally original and not a Star Wars rip off in any way economical four door sedan of ships that is the Reliant line? No ironic relation to 1980's Plymouth cars intended.

Since I have a craptop and won't be upgrading for at least a few years is the PS4 version of ED worth it?

>>172904354

If you are a crazy space autist that can't get enough of space games, sure. Just don't expect to be winging up with anyone.

>>172904802
Tbh never played a game like this b/c no gaming PC but it seems really interesting. How much of an autist do I have to be?

Will I be able to be a full-time security detail on large ships in SC? Flying ships is okay, but I'd much rather go for the whole space marine angle. Boarding ships and defending my own ship from boarding actions sounds breddy gud family member.

>>172905036
It's pretty cool, but there is no endgame to speak of. You kind of have to make your own motivation as to what you want to get out of it, because there is no real gameplay as you probably think of it.

>>172905158
I think that role is going to be critical for pirates who want to collect ships intact, and large ships that expect to defend against that type of attack. Aside from that, assaults on npc bases like gamescom demo will need full time armored ground crews supported by fully manned ships.

There will probably be many people with sizeable fortunes that own nothing more than personal transport ships.

I understand what you mean. I'll look into it, it doesn't release for awhile anyway. Appreciate the help. Been wanting to scratch this itch and nearly fell for No Man's Buy, just wanted to make sure it wasn't like that with tons of tedious mining no matter what play style you wanted to do.

>>172905158
FPS is shaping up to be a big part of the game.

>>172905583
>>172905731
Cool, that's exactly what I want. I don't mind flying, per se, but I'm really hoping I can primarily be a "space marine" type.

>>172905158
long ago they set up a civil war scenario on a UEE client planet-state with implications of ground warfare merc work, which has become much more plausible with fps getting fleshed out and procedural gen giving us actual large scale ground areas.

>>172905158

I'd imagine so, but you'd probably be able to do other things other than just walk around the ship with a rifle slung. No need for that until you get in battle where you may board/be boarded.

>>172906303
>large scale ground areas
one day we will have large scale Arma 3 style KOTH only all three sides start in orbit above the AO and have to battle their way to the ground in fighters and troop transports to claim a piece of dirt.

SC is the first baby step towards that. Maybe they will give us some awesome reason to throw our lives away over territory.

>>172912723
poor billy :(

>>172903461

Well considering what the small ones do when engineered for anti-shield, you can probably kiss your cutter/corvette's shield generator goodbye in one hit.

>>172892780
>all these biotech conductors and exquisite focus crystals from mission rewareds

Really wish we could trade or sell micromats.

Have they seriously not fixed the issue where you can max out faction rank progress in Elite and go for days or weeks without seeing a promotion mission? Did the Dads enshrine that bug as a feature?

>>172907775
God I hope so, but each year it seems like most games are pushing players into increasingly cramped maps where they spawn practically into the middle of the firefight. Fuck thinking, just shoot those guys. On second thought, fuck shooting. The whole map's a grenade trap so just press 'G' to get some kills.

File: 1490037134666.png (247KB, 493x446px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 493x446px

>>172912723

What are we supposed to get in 3.0, exactly?

>buy ZP Hauler for the first time to use as a taxi

Goddamn, I feel like a space hobo in this thing. Even its engine and ambient sounds make it feel like a complete piece of shit. I kind of dig it.

>>172922548
Everything you desire but nothing you'll ever need.

>>172922548
Planetside tech + landing for all of Stanton
Mining
Subsumption (functional non-flight AI)
Cargo system
Few new ships including Dragonfly and Ursa Rover
Lots of new missions, to include new systems
Arguably most importantly - New Netcode that won't lag to shit with a lot of players.

File: 1474317893157.jpg (708KB, 1440x2271px) Image search: [Google]

708KB, 1440x2271px

o7 o7 o7

>>172925846
Its an old meme sir, but it checks out.

>>172912723
Is this an excerpt from Derek's book?

derek smart more like derek shart LOL

>>172928034
That would imply Derek is capable of producing something

File: challenged to honorable combat.webm (536KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

536KB, 1920x1080px

>>172925846
>o7 o7 o7

>>172903275

Yeah. But a cutlass costs money, so if you park your ship near a derelict wreck/station and lose it while you are out (which will happen often, Im certain) you lose a ton of credits. Besides Im not seeing a solo player easily looting anything and filling the cutlass cargo hold.

The ship for the effect must be as cost effective as possible. Also the freelancer is fucking expensive and slow as balls. There is no alternative so far.

>>172928528

>not even counting with suicide bumpers.

>>172928528
>Besides Im not seeing a solo player easily looting anything and filling the cutlass cargo hold.

Why not

>>172922548

The promise of future improvements and excuses for several delays.

>lel

It will take like 4/5 years before everyone has that "NASA super computer" needed to play the game at an affordable price.

>>172928717

For trading is easy. With loot, not so sure.

You can go to a certain station or wreck, park the ship, go in and position all the loot/boxes you find at the entrance. Get back to your ship, tractor the junk and store it.

Two problems: in the event of a troll appearing and blowing up/stealing your ship you lose too much (you need less rate of success with a cheaper ship to have profit). More cargo loading also means more time storing it which can be tiresome.

I dont think its going to work so good for the solo player. Unless ofc they release a magic single seater salvager/cargo runner which is cost effective (most likely with no guns at all).

File: goonie.gif (3MB, 315x236px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 315x236px

>>172928753
Good stuff

>>172928946
I don't think we're going to be in a position like we are now where if you leave your ship for 2 minutes the chances of someone coming across it and destroying it are almost certain, and there isn't really a way of making that more secure for a solo player regardless of the ship.

>>172928946

Nvm. You might sustain it with smuggling. Maybe it could work.

>>172929069

I had a laugh the other day while I was watching a streamer. He parked his ship near some wreck and when he returned he got his ship blown by an NPC pirate that appeared out of fucking nowhere which was later killed by a player super hornet that carved the streamer "floating character" with bullets. Shit will be rough. A lot more rough than eve.

>>172929295
Grimhex is a nightmare to even spawn in

Do you think this game will ever be delayed because of feature creep and/or bloat

>>172930316

Its a detailed space sim which got a FPS variant and has fucking ingame shops selling virtual t-shirts and coffee cups.

What do you think?

File: .jpg (31KB, 627x325px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 627x325px

>>172930316

so this game has been in alpha for like, six years

when will it actually be a game?

>>172932790
>six years
goon identified

>>172932971
>goon

what did she mean by this

>>172932790
Fall 2018 when 3.0 comes out.

File: 2317293817238927983imafag392893.jpg (35KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 500x333px

>>172932790
>game
He did it again

File: vanooty.jpg (100KB, 1431x1000px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 1431x1000px

>>172932728

>>172932790

What happened in the RMT wars and why does Smart fap to Sandy Gardiner?

>honest questions, no flame

Worth downloading 2.6.2?

Or have people generally gone into hibernation until 3.0 and all that is left on BR/SB is the massive tryhard org groups

>>172936537
Single player PS and VS is great. Online modes have pretty severe desync and ship combat isn't really possible. Supposedly SM is slightly better, so if you like that then yes probably.

>>172936647
Eh, unless they fixed the AI the PvE modes are broken. They can't deal with how you're flying most of the time, so I'm not really interested in it anymore.

Maybe I'll jump on SM

File: 1490063290264.jpg (27KB, 294x325px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 294x325px

>>172829085
>literal square tiles of "biomes" on water planet

>>172936792
>unless they fixed the AI
oh, you a funny guy that likes to kid around. that's cool. i can laugh too hahahaha

>>172936647
>Single player PS
Can you actually play PS in single player? I haven't touched the """""pre-alpha""""" since it first came out and was an unplayable clusterfuck.

>>172937238
Yeah, select AC and there is a single player button. Change the mode from free flight to PS or VS. I get over 60fps like that.

>>172937238
You haven't touched this since v0.8?

>>172936929
those tiles are larger than most games entire game worlds. and Its an Ice moon.

>>172937323
Does it still host a server for you, or it's mostly offline?

>>172936929
looks like ice
honestly who gives a fuck about procedural planets or procedural anything tho

>>172937387
>those empty tiles of procedurally generated bland squares are bigger than handcrafted worlds in other games
WHOA, REALLY?
>>172937483
>honestly who gives a fuck about procedural planets or procedural anything tho
Reddit, RSI, fanboys in general. This guy >>172937387

>>172937454
I think it just runs local. There is a big jump in framerate and my GPU utilization gets over 80%, which is very different from every other game mode where my GPU barely gets over 40%

>>172936929
Not really seeing that much of an issue with it. Transition could use a touch up but eh, doesn't look tiled.

File: oh honey bunny.jpg (21KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 400x400px

>>172936537
>Worth downloading 2.6.2?
Is it 3.0?

File: 1490805316639.jpg (19KB, 229x272px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 229x272px

>2 years since I pledged
>I wonder what's Chris up to these days
>watch latest AtV
>first person movement still feels like FP mod for GTAIV at ping of 200

rip madcatz

Not really of course, they deserve to be going bankrupt. But did Saitek get sold to Logitech or was it Madcatz+Saitek?

Think this means the SC HOTAS is DOA?

What do you think is more likely for AtV this week?

>CIG explains the desync and ship weapon problems and announces a short term fix.

>Ship Pipeline Part 3: Refactors

>>172939048
Hopefully Cutlass. I want everyone to realize how stupidly huge it is now.

>>172939247
>I want everyone to realize how stupidly huge it is now.

I respectfully disagree.

It was too large for what it was originally meant to be for, but that has long since changed. It was too small for its current role. Think its perfect now.

>>172939346
I don't know what role it's supposed to be now, even. They dropped "fight with cargo" idea, now it just looks like budget Freelancer.

>>172939346
>tfw you'll never dock several Drake spacecraft together like Voltron and take out a Driller with your hugefuck energy sword.
Are they even trying?

>>172939624
It can still fight, shit has some teeth to it.

But a multipurpose ship with easy crew/troop disembarking, dedicated tractor mount and big enough cargo bay, from the looks of things.

Its size before made it useless compared to Avengers and junk.

>>172939624
The Freelancer is supposed to have a protected cargo hold that can't be scanned as easy. The Cutlass still carries less, and has no protection from scanning.

>>172938920
Only saitek got sold, meaning they MIGHT actually become good again. Don't hold your breath though, Logitech is still a cut rate hardware company, they're just slightly less shit than madcatz.

>>172940005
Logitech isn't even honoring Saitek returns, and the """"new"""" HOTAS uses exactly the same X-52 system

They're a garbo company when it comes to this

>>172939941
cutlass is also more heavily armed.

>>172939798
>>172939624
Freelancer and Cutlass are rival in a similar role.

Freelancer is a light freighter that can fight a bit and survive combat. Cutlass is a heavy fighter that can carry a bit of cargo too.

>>172940098
That's not a bad thing if they're made properly.

>>172940098
I'd watch whatever saitek produces next. The rhino is a lost cause(I own one and regret it) due to poor design and poor materials/quality. Of course when they got bought out the just repackaged their lineup and put it back up for sale, so nothing was really changed. However their next project will be out from under the thumb of Madcatz from its very start so just maybe it will be less shit, time will tell, but if its a another $200 plastic garbo stick then we can jsut write saitek off for good.

>>172940259
You could make the X-52's system perfectly, but its inherently flawed and terrible value for the price they were asking

>TFW really want to fly with a stick for MUH IMMERSHUN reasons but MKB is just so much easier.
Playing the BDSSE with a mouse as a point and click adventure just feels so wrong, but the Hotas I have is shit and I dont want to spend $400 for a warthog or however much a full set of CHpro stuff costs now.

tfw buy a retaliator and equip it with cargo modules

>>172941203
tfw buy a starfarer and equip it with torpedoes

>>172939048
>What do you think is more likely for AtV this week?
Refactoring the Pipeline Tools Part 1: Special Guest: Sean Tracey

>>172941778
>Special Guest: Sean Tracey
Sign me the fuck up