A pack of fighters SHOULD be reluctant to engage a multi-turret ship that is properly crewed. A single pilot who's mastered their ship SHOULD be able to take down 2 foes of lesser skill if they pilot well. Hopefully they will balance things!
Completely agree. Multi-crewed S3 ships and larger should almost never be able to be taken out by 1-3 fighters. Like ever. It SHOULD require large hordes of fighters to take out an 8 player-multi crewed avertised "anti-fighter" ship. It's just ridiculous to expect otherwise.
The only practical way to do this is to make bigger ships have longer range and higher projectile velocity on their weapons (including turrets). They could even just tie it to the ship's powerplant size and use the lore explanation of "more power means shots go further, faster".
@@Sattorin Ya I just don't understand why larger ships can't shoot further. You would think bigger guns would = longer range. In fact, that's probably what NEEDS to occur to bring multi-crewe ships into there they need to be. So they can't just be kited by a SNUB fighter. Which is the silliest thing I've ever heard of.
@jordanroberts7931 I have taken out multiple fighters with a crewed ship many times, it's called get good, it's a sim it's supposed to be hard, and there should be incentive to crew your ship but whatever we getting MM anyway and there is nothing I can do about it, even if it takes away part of the allure of starcitizen for me.
I agree with you 100% In fact, I'd go as far as to say a HH should be ANY fighters greatest fear. Sure, a swarm of fighters can land good shots and take the teeth from the HH, but anytime one shows up in a fight, fighters should automatically say "oh shit" and either high tail it out or focus fire the turrets to disable it's offensive capability. That's it. A swarm of Crack shot fighters or bombers.
If the issue is that smaller ships have a smaller hit profile, and therefore can hit bigger ships from further away than they can get hit, why not just give all ships a static modifier to their projectile speed and spread, based on their size? Then you can dial all ships in to have roughly the same range of engagement, and you can control what that range is
@@durtyred86 I'm not sure if we are on the same page regarding the HH, but I'm just gonna share my opinion. The HH should be a ship that defends a location and serves as an anker point in the battle. Light/Medium Fighters should fear the HH in a way that if they get too close, they will die. However, if they stay away, obviously nothing will happen to them as the HH is way slower and can't catch up with them. However, for that to work, the turret ranges of the HH need to be increased, so the Fighters can't hit the HH safely from far away. Additionally, their small weapons shouldn'T even penetrate the hull, that's the job of size 4 guns and up or maybe even only size 5 and up. So, the HH wouldn't be able to free the sky of Light Fighters if they don't wanna engage, but it can safely defend a location like JT (of which we need more of in the verse) or it can keep the middle of a fleet battle clear from the pesky little mosquito fighters. That's how I would balance it. (FYI, I am a Gladius/Scorpius Pilot and want to fly nothing else later on in the game, so you see, contrary to my playstyle, I would still like the Hammerhead to be buffed against Light Fighters as I don't even want to engage such ships in this game. I fly Light Fighters to fight other Light Fighters. That is my role and that should be the only role of that ship) But to be clear: Light Fighters and such shouldn't be nerfed like it happened in MasterModes. Instead, the HH should be buffed with actual armor and higher turret ranges.
Agreed. I still believe that a ship with 8 crew should be 8 times the 'combat weight' of a single seater. I know it doesn't sounds "fair" but the reality is that in games of this scale, there is no "fairness" in comparing a larger more capable ship to a smaller seemingly less capable ship. Imagine if modern day Naval combat was dominated by fishing boats with gatlings on the nose vs modern day naval warships. CIG really painted themselves into a corner by trying to make ALL ships have some kind of edge. When in reality, the Hammerhead should ALWAYS win against small fighter squadrons, with a lower combat weight. e.g. a Hammerhead with 4 active turrets, 1 pilot, 1 engineer/turret should always win against 6 small aircraft, and as the number of aircraft increase to 7+ the difficulty for the Hammerhead to comete should rise dramatically. The Ion and Inferno were literally made to kill ships like the Hammerhead, so that was a moot point. You can see the *intent* behind the whole Rock Paper Scissors design for Capital ships, but when we get to the large, medium, and lights, it gets muddled.
Predictable outcomes I would say. In terms of WW2 air combat the pilots of the era said "altitude is life, speed is your saviour" Meaning that with altitude, you have more options due to a higher energy state and can dictate the terms of any engagement against lower opponents. While a higher top speed is going to get you out of trouble should you step in it. There's a lot more to say about energy states and WW2 combat but I'll leave it there. Seeing how SC has no altitude factor, speed and maneuverability are the only two relevant factors that are ship specific. I'd claim that the only reasonable way to balance fighters vs fightesr would be to set a hard limit to SCM speed and balance things out with maneuverability vs firepower, take SCM speed out of the equation. Make missiles the tool they should be, to hit targets you can't reach with guns and force them to maneuver so that you can close in. For repositioning during a fightllow people to enter NAV mode for higher speeds in combat, with the associated risks. Make team vs team fights a game of geometry and positioning, and the combat will be in a good spot. As for multicrew ships. Make them that much harder to kill. Large ships should be difficult to kill with S5 weapons and perhaps require S6 even, unless you can surgically hit key components with specialized weapons for penetration of armor. Entry level weapons for Capital ship killing would be S7-S8. End result should be that; 1) Fighters are unable to kill Large size ships and bigger. Damage? Yes in some cases (heavy fighters) decisively kill no, not without very specialized assets. 2) Fighter vs fighter combat needs to be about positioning and maneuverability, in addition to the obvious ship configuration choices which are not tactical decisions. 3) Larger multicrewed ships needs to be much more effective against smaller ships. Why else would you even use them???
Afaik only 2 Bf-110s survived ww2 (two-seater heavy fighter), so maybe that's what cig is going for - to kill off and make obsolete the multicrew ships.. 😢
@@Schimml0rd The Bf110 was obsolete before it entered service. The idea of a rear gunner making any difference for a heavy fighter was never accurate. RLM set a requirement for a rear gunner on its heavy fighters, if that requirement had been omitted the superior Fw187 had been procured instead and undoubtedly performed better in the zerstörer role.
simple solution for multicrew ships. weapon range. size 1-3 1500m. size 4-5 3000m. size 6-8 4000m. size 9-10 6000m. this way small fighters cant get into multicrew ship weapon range without taking fire first.
Accelerate corsair or 600i to 900m/s and you'll have 7-8 kilometer firing range. The problem is you can't land hits at this distances even on bigger ships. Don't even mention light fighters. Even if they fly straight at you. So increasing the range won't do, especially with the hyroscopic turrets movement which makes leading a target even worse. Bigger ships should have their under fire shield recharge back. That is what will make fighter pilots think twice.
@@spaceman112211 size 1-3 1500m (1500 m/s velocity). size 4-5 3000m (3000m/s velocity). size 6-8 4000m(3500 m/s velocity). size 9-10 6000m(5000 m/s velocity) Random number but you have the idea. WTF are you talking about "accelerate Corsair and 600i ? are you one of those people ?
@@TUROCK320 I'm talking about the ability to shoot over these distances even in 3.22 and before if you are firing from these particular ships at speed. Go try hit moving target at 6000m I'll take a look. I bet you'll start hitting it at around 3km or less anyway. It doesn't matter what a projectile speed is cause you need to hit a freaking pixel at this distance.
I was the Hawk pilot, and there's exactly one scenario where i potentially survive: 1. I start reverse thrust before i land 2. Immediately boost in reverse 3. Decouple and pitch 180 4. Re-enable NAV mode 5. Align and QT out And somewhere in there find time to open the map, cancel my route, and hope you haven't caught up to me. But i made three mistakes that doomed me. 1. I only saw a single red hostile and no neutrals, and coasted towards the hostile contemplating engaging. 2. I didn't cancel my destination 3. I took far too long to identify how many bogies i was up against. By the time everyone throttled up and lit up my HUD, it was over.
As a hawk pilot I will say its a bit odd that the bounty hunting light fighter didn't get interceptor tuning w/ the implementation of MM. Like why is the ship that's designed to capture fleeing bounties be unable to keep pace? The hawk is still my favorite despite all its issues from the fact that its best suited to energy builds, but its capacitors/number of weapons make that kinda hard. I hope that once it gets is mm retuning pass they consider the issues mentioned.
Yeah, i will say i am not a fan of the current state of 3.23, but i have assumed this was a problem. The whole no shields while traveling at high speeds thing is so dumb. My issues were confirmed in testing. A group of mantis had locked down crusader the other day, and there wasn't a damn thing anyone could do. I got pulled out of quantum at least 5 times the other day and was dead within 3 seconds. That's super fun gameplay right there. (Sarcasm) This is the same issue I've discussed over and over. The game design and goals are at odds with one another. Either we are playing battlefield or some crappy rust in space, or we are playing a space sim. The sim and the battllefield experience do not work together. You can't have the death of a spaceman and have death occur so easily. If death is happening 5 to 10 times every 2 hour play session, you're simply playing a respawn shooter with worse mechanics. I mean, if they want to go that route thats fine, then remove the pain in the butt features that punish death and make it fun and forget the sim and all the other bs and just focus on fun. Im sorry, but this game is DOA if the typical game session is, "spend an hour prepping, then dying the second you make your first jump." Rinse and repeat. The majority of players do not have the time nor will have this patience for that kind of loop. I think we see the positive reaction for MM because most people have only tested it against AI. I think there is also just short sightedness against the big picture. It's a big change where there hasnt been for years, and people are just desperate for improvement. There's more to say, but I'll end my rant for now.
@basicallybroke672 peak star citizen commenter right here. Low IQ, zero constructive feedback, and nothing added to the conversation. Probably a mantis owner who's happy they can finally get some use out of it trolling the verse. Same guy who will be whining on Spectrum like a small child when the game changes again. The shields are the least of my concerns at this point and are just one of many things that don't even make sense in the verse or from a gameplay perspective. Try harder.
The sad truth is that the average player just isn't going to listen to you until they start suffering from these issues when MM goes live. As a teacher all I can say is that you're doing a great job presenting valuable information, and it's their loss if they refuse to learn before they get burned.
The sad truth is that 90% of SC players don't engage in PvP or even ship combat. To be honest, I don't blame them. We were promised a space combat simulator (which we have never gotten) but instead keep moving closer and closer to "Ace Combat: Assault Horizon" or "Blazing Angels: Squadrons of WWII"
@@solventob which is fine tbh, but i agree that the casuals, to a degree ofc ruin this potential of the game to invent a totally new style of combat unique on this planet. the amount of times i read i should roleplay because my "pirate activities" wouldnt earn me anything if i kill XYZ person is heartbreaking tbh, i just like the thrill of him maybe bringing people or having backup next time, but ye, game is dead in this regard.
@grayssoncarl5020 "ruined more or less EVERY game that tried to mix PVE and PVE without an opt-out or opt-in for PVP." Yes. Thats why the solution is an opt-out opt-in system not a dumbed down flightmodel. Even tho a dumbed down flightmodel might be necessary for new players, but then give the option to toggle between a simple and advanced ship control. I know it's far away but they should balance around the complete game not the current 1 solar system. Pyro supposed to be something like eve nullsec while stanton kinda like lowsec and there should be high sec systems where you basically cannot grief players without losing instantly.
8:02 so, the flight model that was supposed to address jousting, basically made it meta? Before at least, fighter vs fighter, would make jousting usually only drag the fight along, but likely the jouster eventually would lose.
Player "I love master modes" CIG "Thank you for your valuable feedback" Player "Master modes isn't ready, its not good". CIG "You need to test it more before giving feedback"
from what i listened to though is that cigs representative was baffled about AVG1s view when they had a crossinterview with space tomato. their perception is that vanguards go into backstrafe and kill everything smaller then them while its quite the opposite, because they have such a large amount of data and only so many outlayers of even average to good players (dedicated to fighting) there is still a lot to be done especially in the higher echelon of dedicated pilots
@@AKARazorback yeah thats probably the case ... they already said that this needs to be balanced so that we dont end up with a new interceptor meta(which will be coming) coming from a light fighter meta and hornet meta and honestly they should stop catering to some community idiots and just pump the game full of the tech they have at hand from sq42 and handle the issues later the community will cry either way involving and listening to the community from day one after the vote to go ham probably delayed the game too
I don't hate the idea that 1 guy won't be able to lock down a station now. get a few random low skills to attack together and you can probably push a solo off the station. Currently, if that solo player is good, you can bring 5 randoms and the solo will win.
then higher some other good players to defend the stations. That's how economy works. Also this could just be fixed by actually well performing turrets and Navy NPCs in the future. No need to just take out all the skill out of the game to achieve what you are asking for. That's the worst possible fix there could be
@@_Anaklysmos_ you literally BRING EMERGENT GAMEPLAY INTO THE SERVERS AND THEY WANT US GONE?! NO ONE CARES ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF LANDING FEES AND HOW IT BRINGS THE COMMUNITY TOGETHER!
@@_Anaklysmos_ It seems to me that there are often times that there are no available players that have put in the weekly training to "get gud" This way, dedicated PvPers can still do their thing by flying in 2s or 3s, but 1 single ship will have a harder time locking down an entire station.
It’s such an obvious issue that a solo player can’t avoid damage, and now can’t run when dampened, that it blows my mind CIG is even considered this model even slightly good
While testing EPTU flying my Cutlass by myself I was engaged by a lone interceptor while in atmosphere. There is really nothing you can do in that situation. Many many people playing mainly PVE stuff will lose interest in the game and that's a crying shame. CIG are playing with fire here.
With the cutlass go VTOL and use the vertical thrust in decoupled mode to your advantage. It can be messy till you get the hang of it. Once you are used to it, though, you can use the vrol to compete with the drift/turn rate of those pesky fighters. ❤
Truth. We have WAY too much thruster power for the SCM speeds. It needs to take significantly more time to go from 0-100%+ SCM so managing your energy state is more involved. There is WAY too much linear difference between fighter archtypes. There needs to be overlap between classes on some flight characteristics so heavier fighters have options in dogfights. Interceptors need to trade acceleration for top speed instead of manuverability for top speed so they can't dictate the engagement 100% of the time. I think repeaters need a much higher DPS than cannons, but only be able to apply DPS at short ranges to avoid cannon meta. I think we need a limited form of constant capacitor regen to offset the pot shots (for shields) at long distance, and to foster trigger discipline (burst firing) rather than unloading the mag. Personally I think they need to reconsider balistic shield penetration and balancing solely on ammo capacity. It's a binary, you either have enough and balistics are superior or you don't and they're inferior. It's not a suitable drawback for balancing.
@FaireFionwe you should not be able to "dodge" incoming fire, nor will you be able to with projectile speeds where they are. The point is to avoid the firing cone. If you find yourself in the firing cone, you should engage in evasive maneuvers to exit the firing cone and/or effective range, not dodge projectiles. That's silly. You would need unbelievably slow projectiles. If you want cinematic space planes, you need to tamp down the lateral thrust. WW2 in space and full 6dof are mutually exclusive concepts.
@@HitmannDDDall really good points Hitman. I've been saying that mastermodes shouldn't be a mode change on your ship, it should be based on speed. Changing "modes" should just be engaging/disengaging the speed limiter. Afterburner shouldn't give you a big top speed boost, it should give you acceleration boost (and normal acceleration should be turned away down). I completely agree that we go from 0 to 100% waaaaay too fast.
To be fair i played solo pirate swarm and i felt like corsair could hold against pve. That said, against players you are screwed. But i felt it was easier. Canon meta i two or tri shot any small switching from one to another etc. Even standing still most of the time.
This is exactly why I’ve been a big supporter of giving medium/heavy fighters better top speeds, but worse acceleration. Similar to how it works in WW2 sims. Big twin prop fighters held their top speed better, but had worse manuever and acceleration. Interceptors could out accelerate them but had to wait for them to make a mistake
Yeah this really needs fixing, a Hammerhead should be able to EASELY defend itself against 10+ Fighters minimum in order to fulfill its role as a Corvette. It should also not have Rhino Repeaters as the default loadout but the long range Flak canons with proximity explosive rounds. Maybe they could add passive Role bonus effects to ships like in EvE Online where certain ship classes have different stats that influence the performance, like a " x % Bonus to accuracy and range of Size 4 Weapons." on Corvettes for example. Would make it easier to balance stuff without influencing all ships across the board.
CIG is making a big mistake. The Interceptor role should not be associated with lighter ships, on the contrary, it should be with the heaviest fighters in the game. Higher top speed, quicker master mode cooldowns but poor maneuverability due to weight. This would make it a lot easier to balance things.
Dude, much appreciation for putting these videos out and for all the help you offer the community. I’ve learned so much from the education you constantly provide and watching your stream. Again, can’t thank you enough. Always looking forward to your content. 🙏🏼
Bro that literally how its supposed to be but the devs think "Oh lets not make meta = all ship weapon sizes have same range" LOL. Irdris railgun is i think size 10 and its range can fire at a planet from orbit.
While I agree that multicrew ships are still in a bad place, neither of the two people we saw in the hammerhead (the pilot and bounty target) were members of Vanguard
As a new player this is just frustrating. I really want to aggressively get better at ship combat (chasing the old ED dragon) but knowing most of the ship combat is going to be thrown on its head at a moment's notice makes me want to just wait for master modes and then jump in
This. After all this time the flight model should be mostly nailed down by now. I’ll have to spend my time in something else for 3.23. A1 has done his part to bring this to Yogi’s attention. CIG needs to address these imbalances faster
There's easy solution. Make multicrew ships what they'd really be in that scenario. Fucking shielded tanks with auto turrets that 100% ot the time hit their target regardless of target's "evasive manoeuvres" or "skill". Make them only susceptible to equally powerful large ships or big pirate gangs (e.g. 3x the amount of turrets meaning turrets take damage before they're able to take down all of the attackers). And for extra gameplay loop, add heists. You slingshot a guy to EVA onto that cargo ship, take a blowtorch to those plates, find the shield generator and blow it up. Or locate a turret, find power supply, disable, rinse, repeat. Or maybe said guy could open a hatch and silently get into the ship? After hacking some alarm. Or not so silently if he fails to hack it. Or maybe he'd be able to silently trigger the small `emergency_cargo_jettison.sh` subroutine. Or again - not so silently. Because gameplay. Tons of it! Or maybe you could lure such big ship into some kind of a trap. Or maybe you fly like three fighters one behind the other and when shields on the first one got depleted, you switch places, until you're close enough to bomb the shit out of that cargo bay. All of that makes more sense than few fighter ships taking it down. They should retire dogfighting long time ago - it doesn't work, it never will.
This is so dumb. You trying to turn the ships into skilless EVE? That's not an easy solution, that's a solution that doesn't benefit anybody. Auto turrets that don't miss? Who tf would want that? It's bad enough the bunker turrets barely miss, maneuvering and cover is the only defense, who tf would want that for every ship in the game? Removing skill doesn't make the game more balanced.
@@Shanex250 Who the fuck would want what? A piece of tech that we already have? That can be built on an Arduino board? The real question is: who the fuck thinks we won't have even better solutions for auto aiming in the future? Making it at least what we have in bunkers, although those are highly imprecise and slow even for today's standards, would still be better than now. You don't know the definition of skill, my friend. Knowing when and how to use a superior tech, is a skill. You're talking about piloting an aircraft (as in: a plane), but somehow you want it to be applicable to space. That's not a skill, that's a fantasy. Soon all means of locomotion will be automated and unmanned but you want human pilots trading lives based on individual skills, the opposite of where the humanity is going right now. And yet SC tries to "carry on the torch" of dogfights. Only it doesn't work and never will, because there's no reason for such behavior to exist in the world of SC. Same way there's no reason to get on a big multicrew ship when you know it can be taken down by a few fighters. Nobody would man such vessel. Zero volunteers. Same goes for cargo - no company would go into that business in SC's paper mache cargo ships because the base of hauling industry is the guarantee that each freight will reach its destination at least 99.9% of the time. Why? Because each time it doesn't, they have to pay for it and cover their losses. Why? Because, again, who'd insure such freight? I don't give a fuck about your "skill" or your "balanced" - frankly, I really really don't want SC to be "balanced". All I care is immersion and that's dictated by believability of the game's world. Dogfighting in futuristic space is not believable. World being fair and "balanced" is not believable. Big ships being next to unstoppable by small fighters, is.
@cprn. your definition of making a big ship unstoppable is half dumb as shit though. Nothing wrong with them being tanky with overwhelming firepower, but to put that on top of auto aim? That's not skill chief, That's just using mechanics. Dogfighting capability will always be a thing and will always exist. SC isn't as bad as you make it out to be and the game is unfinished, we are just getting MM in and we haven't even had the full rebalanced put in nor the armor rework. You suggesting a game changing solution that isn't even necessary. And I'm sorry but most of the complaints is literally a skill issue, people blaming new game mechanics for their losses when they haven't fully learned it.
@@Shanex250 Here's the thing. It's not game changing. It's a very small aspect of the game that isn't even important to most players. Maybe 10% of backers right now want space combat to be what it is, mostly you-tubers with pricy stick setups (and I have nothing against them, I do stream sometimes myself and I have a stick setup, I'm just saying they're very vocal about it so it seems like a lot of people wants this - according to Spectrum, not so many). Okay, maybe I'm going overboard with 100% hitting turrets (I want big ships to be stoppable by equally big force, not by few puny dots on the radar), but tell me this - we do have automatic defence systems in bunkers... So why not on ships? The answer is: because it'd make the life of pirates too hard. But putting those artificial restrictions in just to "force" dogfighting on players is not a way to make the game fun. It doesn't work and it's being resisted by the community for a reason. I'm a fan of this natural gameplay where you immerse yourself in the game's world to the point you think about doing something that'd work in real life and get amazed because it fucking worked! And it encourages you to experiment and discover new things, like e.g. I found out in 3.23 that equipping a Mustang Delta with a weaker (and at the same time emitting less EM and IR) power plant, makes it virtually undetectable from more than 2km away and almost totally immune to IR and EM following missiles (with the downside of having to disable shields and guns to fly out of a hangar because thrusters need extra power for coupling and gravity compensation). If I had the old gimbals back I'd easily jump bigger fighters with it because I could unload my whole burst and take away their guns or engines before they see me. Unfortunately with new gimbals it's not for me. Imagine finding something like that yourself, e.g. finding out that throwing a grenade on a cargo hatch blows it open (because we don't have C4, I'd totally try that with C4). Or finding a way to dominate and basically tame (maybe even sell?) them dog-like kopions because you killed the alpha, or something like that. Or imagine that in a version of SC that *has* auto-turrets on big haulers, you came up with a sensible tactic to use the "noise" countermeasures to take at least one of them down? Those are truly unforgettable moments that I'd love to have more in game. Flying a ship and shooting at each other, not so much. It's boring for me. If I wanted dogfighting, I'd play a WW2 planes game.
The interdiction part is not significantly different to live (except that ships die quicker) In 3.22 the Mantis can kite you just as well as in 3.23 and prevent you from jumping out. A group of attackers against one defender that gets interdicted will win in 3.22 and 3.23 If anything in 3.23 the Mantis will die more easily if alone. Since the Mantis has been made more fragile in 3.23 compared to 3.22.
@@terry7342 Not really. A Mantis with 20km would keep on you very reliably. And since the balance pass on the Mantis is not completed yet I figure that it will only become easier to escape the Mantis going forward.
Here's an idea, what if the Mantis can make a 20km interdiction bubble, but only a 5km dampening bubble, so the Mantis must activiley pilot to keep you there. Sure that is rather unrealistic, why would you get pulled out of QT at 20km but could engage QT within that range? But honestly, with MM we've already made a big leap away from 'realism' anyway.
@@raven9ine that is already the case. Just with 12km Dampening. CIG can only reduce it further by implementing cooldowns for example but there is probably no time for that in 3.23.0
We'll just have to wait what they make of it in the long run, personally I'm more interested in the fleet combat meta. I'm assuming capital ships will receive massive cannons with longer ranges and fully automated point defence guns as a deterrent for missiles and small fighters. Not to mention the repair/support mechanics and armour implementations of carriers and dedicated ships etc. There's probably going to be a rock/paper/scissors balance in the end, it's just that not everything is in the game yet. However the Hammerhead should probably receive an upgrade, judging from the clip, as it is marketed as a fighter screen for the fleet in the first place. Actually, the best solution will probably be a weapon balance pass, coupled with speed tuning and iterations. It seems more realistic bigger guns would just have larger ranges, speeds and damage output and/or more area saturation. Nevertheless naval ship composition has always been important in real life fleets as well, so it most certainly will play a role in the end game combat.
A1 you're doing God's work here. Please keep making these types of videos and keeping highlighting how bad this problem is! Most players don't know it because they don't see it so this helps to expose the massive flaws in the new MM flight model.
This is all great. I love these videos. HOWEVER........ Most of us play Star Citizen where we have to do bounties and fight between astroids or in atmosphere in the dark. These strats will get you killed in seconds as you smash into a rock or the ground... Need to see a vid showing how to effectively do those kind of missions at higher levels.
@@de5pa1r34 OK champ. Did you read what I said? That using the tactics in this video will get you killed vs Rocks and ground environments... Not that you can't avoid it. I was asking for a realistic video to combat HRT and up bounties in the new flight model.
Yeah anyone who doesn’t pay attention to their surroundings will get killed by these. Any competent pilot will easily be able to avoid those obstacles.
What's the difference between going to NAV in MM and just trichording away at 1200 m/s in LIVE? At least these fights are resulting in ships dying and not an hour of trichording where a 5 on 5 might result in 1 dude dying.
Yes but let’s say I’m in a msr and engaged by 3 hornets and I need to get away… I switch to nav mode and lose my shields, in my book a bigger ship should be able to tank those 3sec before I get way. You saying that’s not possible?
Because in PU not every fight needs to end in destruction. That's why the initial idea of MM works for AC, but is misplaced in the PU where you need to consider players woth other focuses than PvP ship combat. Which I suppose is why the made switch times lower now, and possibly also because long mode switch times make traveling an absolute chore.
@@raven9ine I'm one of those weirdo players that usually does industrial things, or some bunker runs, or when I've got a real itch to push limits I'll go do some PvE bounties. The moment they announced MM my thought was largely that they were screwing everyone but PvP players. I tried my best and kept waiting to hear how it would all make sense. Then CIG announced in video that NAV mode means no countermeasures of any kind, and no defenses, as well as a time to swap over where you become even MORE vulnerable, AND that you'd need to be in SCM to scan, mine, salvage, or, y'know, actually do anything. It get so much worse when you realize that in current Live, mining often means a lot of moderate distance traveling while constantly scanning to find a rock worth caring about, then getting close and breaking it up and gathering, then moving to the next. Mining is going to be punishing with how often a pilot will need to swap modes and submodes to have the slightest chance of being efficient with time. That's completely ignoring any effect this has on how an industrial ship will fare in combat with the changes.
The simple reality is the issue with the hammerhead/turrets is not damage rate of fire, tracking or player skill/accuracy its a simple issue of range/speed The hammerheads turrets could do 1/10th of their current damage, but if they had 6000m range hitscan speed they would be a 6 km no fly zone for fighters because the second you get inside 6 km you just start slowly dying the old old tachyon cannons would unironically be amazing for turrets, because hitscan means you can apply consistent damage. turrets, of any kind, currently cannot apply damage, either due to range, or projectile speed, or both.
I get you and appreciate what you're saying. As far as numbers go I don't see much difference from before though. Competent and coordinated pilots in superior numbers have been able to have their way for years. I'd love to see you guys dig harder into the mechanics by, say, taking down Hammerheads with single interceptors. Or maybe see what1-2 skilled pilots with meta setups can do against a random group. Say a Reclaimer with an escort or two. I'd love to see that.
Dampening clearly needs to have a max size, that accumulates with other allies. Because a mantis blocking a massive Qdrive alone is weird. Perhaps it should delay it alone, and perhaps two or more are needed to fully block it from spooling a larger sized qdrive
As an ex Elite Dangerous player, we've had "master modes" for years and it's so funny that people here are struggling with it, we've been switching combat and analysis mode for a while. Great translation of controls.
I played 3.23 long enought to said this: it's different but it's not bad as 3.18 - which I saw couple times ppl said this: 3.23 is as bad as 3.18. It's not bad, it introduce a lot differences.
My Perspective as a solo, mostly industrial player: Oh gawd no. I agree that these are all problems, however: Interceptors being the bane of fighters is to be expected. That is their role. But they should not excel at fighting anything else but fighters, let alone anti-fighter sub captial ships like the HH. Turrets should get a range and/or projectile velocity boost. They still have limited angles, so fighters can duck and weave and get out of LoS. They are also still attached to a (usually) relatively large ship, so they are easy targets. And you need a Pilot and a gunner at least, or you will be a sitting duck. In a "fair" 2v2 fight that would still mean one turret with a decent hit chance, but two individual fighters, of which only one can be fought at a time, and only *if* they get into the turret's field of view. In my head, that seems a lot more fair. A Multicrew ship would have a semi-easy time to defend against a single fighter (which IMO it should), a 2vs2 would be down to skill, and getting swarmed would still be a death sentence.
We need more effective missiles for Capital ships and more missiles for bigger ships and better turret coverage to force close range and have it be a game of pilot and turret Gunner skill as to who wins the fight
That's old school Boom and Zoom tactics. It's simply playing to your advantages. Just as it is in real life, speed equals life. You're trading speed for maneuverability, so you simply have to be aware of how much you can afford to lose based on the scenario.
Am I right in interpreting your recommendation "Go with a friend" as really meaning: "Make sure there are more of you than there are of them"? Assuming we all fly Interceptors, is it just the group with the largest total DPS that wins? Will we all just bunch up in the largest orgs and fly around in hordes?
That's how i read it and from my experience playing MM. You need a wing man more than ever, but honestly in the first example shown here they just fought better in the bucs. Didnt' seem the mkII were organized and focus targeting?
@@Bennisim66 The problem for the mk2:s is that they are speed-walled, so the Bucs scatter into a cloud around the mk2:s, select a target, then all fly in against that target, take it out, then scatter again. Since the mk2:s are speed-walled, the game engine literally doesn't permit them to get at the Bucs. They could temporarily try boosting to give chase and take out a Buc, but boost is a quickly depleted resource and the targeted Buc can always counter-boost making it relatively faster than the boosting mk2:s again, while spending all of the mk2:s boost at the cost of one Buc's boost.
@@Warsheep2k6 Yes, that straight-lining of the mk2:s is another effect that arises from the speed-wall. You could also say carelessness, but really, what can they do if they can't even try to chase the interceptors?
As a dedicated cargo hauler, I've noticed the increasing popularity of piracy as a gameplay feature. Surprisingly, I don’t mind it-piracy adds an exciting dimension to the game. However, there's a major concern that needs addressing: the unfair advantage pirates have when they attack traders in areas without comm stations. Currently, these attacks often go unpunished, and it's frustrating to be repeatedly ambushed by players this way and not being able to retaliate. To enhance gameplay fairness and balance, I propose an innovative solution: equipping the Cutlass Blue with a 10-20km comm station range. This would allow traders to hire Cutlass Blue pilots for protection. The presence of a Cutlass Blue could enable traders to send out a distress signal with a single button press during an attack, providing a fair chance for assistance. This feature would add a strategic layer for both traders and pirates, where pirates would need to first disable the Cutlass Blue to prevent the distress signal from being sent. Incorporating this idea could significantly improve the gameplay experience. Traders would feel more secure, knowing they have a viable means of calling for help, while pirates would face a more balanced challenge. If the pirates manage to disable the Cutlass Blue, the gameplay reverts to its original state, maintaining the risk and excitement of piracy. This solution not only enhances fairness but also enriches the game’s strategic depth. It's a win-win for both cargo haulers and pirates, fostering a more engaging and dynamic in-game environment. What do you think?
dude, i have to give credit when credit is due. you are 100% correct about 3.23 combat/MM. I usually disagree with your takes, but regarding this topic, you speak the truth.
Man the Hammerhead is a joke in Master Modes. The sad truth is that every multi-crew ship faced the same problem before Master Modes. The meta remains the same - multi-crew is dead in the water. This is disappointing. What Master Modes achieves is bringing the problem home to the fighters category of ships. At least the fundamental problem is now being highlighted rather than overlooked cause of light fighters not having experienced this.
multi crew ships are just fundamentally broken, the guns on them just arent big enough to make the lack of mobility worth it. You can't tweak them without completely redesigning them or changing the weapons and inadvertently buffing small fighters
This is why I was so against master modes. They are making combat changes based off a single combat point, velocity. Shields are not done, armor is not done, and I dont think weapon tiers are fully fleshed. Changing combat based off one single point of combat is soooo bad!
Great video, thanks for the info and all the testing you and company do. MM quickly became stale and I didn't understand why until I watched a few of your videos. Let's hope for some drastic changes sooner rather than later.
1. The "egg shaped" thrust asymmetry needs to get much narrower and pointy-er so pilots need to actually change heading to effectively change their velocity vector. (except for maybe special ships with highly vectored thrust like the Fury). 2. The bigger the guns, the longer the range and higher the velocities of the projectiles should be, so a Hammerhead's cone of fire and accuracy is much greater than the fighters attacking it. 3. The smaller the platform (less mass), the less accurate the platform - meaning that because small ships are vibrating and are affected by recoil more, their guns' firing cone should be wider. A size 7 gun on a tiny ship like an Ion or Inferno is nerfed by this accuracy loss, forcing it to close the distance to a target, and the same should be true for interceptor ships.
Why couldn't the hammerhead land shots on the mantis? Is the mantis too fast, or does it stay outside the effective range of the hammerhead weapons? In other words, what capability does the hammerhead lack
A lot of these issues that people are talking about in the comments is due to the fact that Armor is not a thing. Hammerhead for example, will become superbly tanky when the Armor is suddenly bouncing, or eating 80% of the LF's shots, with minimal to zero damage. Especially when module damage becomes a thing, and just hitting a ship in a dead zone will result in absolutely nothing of consequence happening.
I'd swear one of the biggest issues is gun ranges for the slower speed of the ships. We need ranges decreased to make turrets even remotely viable. The other thing is I believe is ship death times seem a little fast. Interceptors need the inherent weakness of being low armored to trade for speed, where as those hornets really should be quite a bit more. No matter what CIG has options for balance and I trust they will try a few things, I just hope they don't take forever to implement changes and see how they go.
I get why this is important. But I also feel like so many people overlook how important the ground game is going to be. All the fancy flying in the world isn't going to help you in an FPS fight. Having a squad of ace pilots who can't FPS for shit isn't going to help you. Case in point the engineering mode currently on the PTU... I have single handedly won several of those rounds because Im good at FPS and have completely thrashed people who are good pilots. The way the game is leaning individual dog fighting skill isn't going to be the deciding factor, you're going to need a mix of people who are good at different things to accomplish larger goals. Bunch of single seat fighters flying around isn't going to be what wins the day once server meshing and stuff exists and once the engineering stuff comes into play. So while its important, I think guys like this over state its importance. There is alot more going on than flight mechanics, and yeah its a big part, but its not the only part and if you over focus on that the rest of the game will suffer. Master modes is a necessary step towards the MMO they're trying to make, as much as it might suck.. its not going to go anywhere.
Okay but to get to said fps ground portion of the game you have to "fly" there right?, so what happens when your in the cutty, and I'm in the mantis?........your done, what happens when your in a c1, and I'm in a arrow .........your done, this is the part where you say that's all big ships vs little so w/e, but unfortunately, that's a likely scenario, and trolls will rule the day. In order to fps, you gotta get to your destination first, and you can't get there, no matter what ship your in, your not gonna wanna play because your game loop isn't being realized. Although I like MM because of the way the ships feel during scm mode, the issues are BLATANT.......period, and in my honest opinion, apart from being interdicted a mantis or Antares, or being shut down by emp's, the ability to gtfo of a fight is what needs improvement, because if I am flying a particular ship, and I want you dead for w/e reason, no amount of fuckery will save you, or me if I happen to be the pray, the chance of getting away is slim to none atm, and that is the issue
I guess if they refuse to listen to feedback then this is the only way to force them to learn from their mistake and this meta will kill the game along with ship sales. After waiting for so long for this master mode change, I'm gutted and don't even want to logon.
to be fair though i havent encountered many pvp fights out of the blue like the one they showcased with the hawk and when i did we were mostly two fat targets, with around 56 of rattler missiles, making hell out of targeting and mostly popping the QD in the first volley or not being swarmed by fighters but 2 people that thought its funny to pop some c2s, so just running standart pve gameloops isnt an issue. when i forced myself to pvp it was with a hornet ghost or sabre playing cat and mouse with bounties with questionable piloting skills.
The solution for the fight model is not MM. It's simple, Use the blackout mechanic properly. This affects the pilot not the ship, so ship performance matters in regards to mass to thrust ratio but G force and G lock will limit how ships interact as ships can't engage if the pilot is unconscious. At high velocity kiters will be greatly inhibited in regards to manoeuvrability and thus will fly flat. At low velocity ships will be more manoeuvrable to do high G (7-12 G) manoeuvres for short bursts. Higher than 12 -13 G's not velocity is the problem. Large ships with gravity generators should be immune to this but their low mass to thrust ratio already limits them to kiting. The only thing CIG would need to add to the game is better pilot to control controls for the Velocity and G limiter. Pilot set button controlled presets would replace MM and allow pilots to adjust them to the ship and flight style for pushing the limit or comfort and control. It would be easy for CIG to tweak a couple of variables to globally affect all pilots in ships without gravity generators to bring about the game play they desire.
I would strongly recommend NOT utilizing railguns on turrets. It is very easy to exploit the charge cycles to get in close to the target. You can also cheese the ranges easier because of the nerf to RG ranges.
Mastermodes: "we'll add three distinct speed brackets for ships, toggle shields and weapons on the fly, allow players to zoom on on components, it will add lots of flavor and complexity to the game" 3.23: "moar ship + cannon = win"
That defeat in detail has become a viable tactic is a step in the right direction. Also seems to me the Hornets fought their own craft wrong. They need to tighten up and not allow the interceptors to pick off a single straggler.
I am not melting or changing what ship packages I own. The current meta (cannon Buccaneer) is something that would have gotten absolutely WRECKED in the old system. Best just to hold onto the ship packages you already own rather than try and buy something meta with IRL money because S-Tier is always one patch away from F-Tier and vice versa. I am sure my Arrow can handle any PVE needed to get the money for a Bucc or something. If Bunker missions are unborked the Cutter can do the job.
I think we also need to consider future features which will be required for true balance: i.e., armor and sub-components of ships. Armor should protect ships and is required for reasonable weapon characteristics to be applied. Also, fighters attacking larger ships should be attacks on sub-components and weapons to reduce the ship in detail, rather than focusing DPS against overall hull health.
Another thing that is never been discussed or touched on by all of us here and CIG are missiles... There is ZERO reasons why a missile can't be more lethal in space combat than what we have right now in the game... There is no drag in space. That means that a missile should have the ability to overcome a simple chaf and flare... But what do we see in the game? Someone shoots a missile at us, we just dump some countermeasures and that's it! Missile evaded... WTF? Why? In air combat you have to break and defend against the missile in various ways... And in space this should be WAY harder! Because now the missile should even be able to stop mif flight and re aquire target or do a 180 turn or whatever, since there is no atmosphere in space. CIG needs to fix missiles, make them the deadly weapons that they SHOULD be in future space combat. So that a big ship can defend itself from pilots. You can even create a new type of ship operator, someone who remotely shoots and controls a missile until it hits the target. That would be a very cool gameplay element and bring some more life to mutli crew gunships.
Yup, as DCS / IL 2 players i have to say this is broken and not their priority in the game ! at all ! Missiles is not a game changer ! it will be not ! Fox 1 / Fox 2 / Fox 3 - CAS or BVR = NOPE dude ! Star Citizen : clunky CAS missiles #TalonShrike my love
But i agree ! My nazi solution = Add "MISSILES SETUP" removing canon loadout ! For exemple the Talon SHRIKE full missile only (but useless). We could have a "missiles" gameplay
@@TUROCK320 Yes that's so unfortunate... Because missiles can fix so many MM problems. I play DCS myself and I can see the potential in this, I don't understand why CIG had forgotten about missiles... Either they are incompetent to correctly code them, or they think that they are not cool enough for them or both. Anyhow, I hope im wrong and CIG one day will fix missiles...
@@TUROCK320 We could have so much! Heat seeking misiles, radar missiles, remote controlled missiles, missiles that shoot down other missiles as countermeasures...
Except there are dozens of people complaining about the opposite -- saying missiles are too strong and overpowered and there is no way to dodge them unless you dump lots of chaff. I think missiles are fine, but there are people who complain about the in/effectiveness of missiles non-stop. I don't think CIG will ever be able to win in that regard and should just keep them as is.
Also the down side to the new combat system is the new "Overly saturated RED" markings that clutter the target and you can not make out your lock on target. They got to change that for sure!!!
once they start to add trade offs on roll rate, pitch, yaw for certain set conditions it should start to loosen it up a bit, also air density penalties with altitude and mass etc in atmo, the higher the DPS capability the more sluggish you should be and they should design the classes around that.
This was a good video. Thank you! One question - what happened to the lag pib? Is it still in the game? If so, how can I get it back as an option? Sorry, if this is a very noob question.
CR: "lets make dogfights slower and closer" CIG: "how about we do the exact opposite?" Dev: "you want me to...artificially cap the throttle just so they can use their guns?" Fun: "I'll show myself out" Logic: "I can't even"
Looking at DPS Calculator, comparing the FL-33 Laser Cannon vs Attrition 3 Laser Repeater, the Attrition 3 outperforms in almost every catagory. Attrition 3 Burst DPS (844), Fire Rate (250rpm), Alpha DMG Min/Max (145), Ammo Speed (1000mps), Ammo Range (2600m). The FL-33 performs less at Burst DPS (506), Fire Rate (350rpm), Alpha DMG Min/Max (121), Ammo Speed (1800mps), Ammo Range (2592m). If you had to choose between the two, would you still choose the Cannon or go with Attritions?
Your effective range with those attritions is far less than the FL33 due to the velocity being so low. You need to get real close to apply that synthetic full DPS number. It's easier to apply a much greater portion of cannon DPS, at a far greater range.
i dont understand ,im new to star citizen but from my understanding on this plroblem is every one wants a Mazda Miyata to have the same handeling and peformence of a BMW m4 40
I’ve never been interested in space ship combat be it PVP or PVE until master modes. Sorry but light speed jousting is dumb, I get it the players who have been testing this game for years have gotten used to it and have figured out how to be good pilots in a broken alpha system but it’s not interesting gameplay at all. If master modes makes it feel more like a dog fight I’m 100% for the change. I’ll worry about the small balance changes later
I honestly think that all size guns should have a flak option. Yes one that takes ballistic ammo so you cant have flak rounds forever, but effective enough so that turrets are able to do something. Or if possible, make it so that only turrets can have flak options so that it doesn't turn into a meta of every ship loading out flak in fighter v fighter. That would make attacking larger ships scary and unless something like a heavy fighter squad is attacking in intervals, the HH will make easy work of them.
Is this fun? I'll be honest it looks like a real awful meta. As the person being kited u literally can not do anything and are helpless and that feeling of helplessness isn't really a fun one... This doesn't look like a good direction for the game, do you have any suggestions to help alleviate the core issue? I know from another open world pvp game there was a weapon that had the ability to engage or disengage at will (It had 2 mobility skills vs most other weapons which had 1) but it suffered from low damage and could be caught with good cooldown management (if u cancelled one if the mobility skills or the user didn't get enough distance with it) but I don't know how that could apply for star citizen
Its crazy that fights are being pushed even further apart with MM than before. This was not the intent, but i guess thats what happens when systems arent tested properly.
I mean no disrespect, but what do you mean by 'when systems aren't tested properly?' This is alpha. This is when systems are implemented (and to some extent tested). You expect them to test these systems completely BEFORE they're implemented in the alpha build? What is it you think we're doing as players?
![BASICS NEW PILOTS SHOULD KNOW! [StarCitizen Combat 3.23]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/FfS0VRkxI24/mqdefault.jpg)
![BASICS NEW PILOTS SHOULD KNOW! [StarCitizen Combat 3.23]](/img/tr.png)
A pack of fighters SHOULD be reluctant to engage a multi-turret ship that is properly crewed. A single pilot who's mastered their ship SHOULD be able to take down 2 foes of lesser skill if they pilot well. Hopefully they will balance things!
Completely agree. Multi-crewed S3 ships and larger should almost never be able to be taken out by 1-3 fighters. Like ever. It SHOULD require large hordes of fighters to take out an 8 player-multi crewed avertised "anti-fighter" ship. It's just ridiculous to expect otherwise.
The only practical way to do this is to make bigger ships have longer range and higher projectile velocity on their weapons (including turrets). They could even just tie it to the ship's powerplant size and use the lore explanation of "more power means shots go further, faster".
@@Sattorin Ya I just don't understand why larger ships can't shoot further. You would think bigger guns would = longer range. In fact, that's probably what NEEDS to occur to bring multi-crewe ships into there they need to be. So they can't just be kited by a SNUB fighter. Which is the silliest thing I've ever heard of.
@jordanroberts7931 I have taken out multiple fighters with a crewed ship many times, it's called get good, it's a sim it's supposed to be hard, and there should be incentive to crew your ship but whatever we getting MM anyway and there is nothing I can do about it, even if it takes away part of the allure of starcitizen for me.
@@SattorinOr lasers could actually go the speed of light?
As I said before . Any ship that takes the pilot over 9g there needs to be a consequence. Not just a blurry vision for a second.
they are scared to make the hammerhead op but it needs to be it need 7-8 ppl to crew it should be equal to 10 - 12 fighters minimum
gib battlefield 1 flak power to the hammerhead
I agree with you 100%
In fact, I'd go as far as to say a HH should be ANY fighters greatest fear. Sure, a swarm of fighters can land good shots and take the teeth from the HH, but anytime one shows up in a fight, fighters should automatically say "oh shit" and either high tail it out or focus fire the turrets to disable it's offensive capability. That's it. A swarm of Crack shot fighters or bombers.
If the issue is that smaller ships have a smaller hit profile, and therefore can hit bigger ships from further away than they can get hit, why not just give all ships a static modifier to their projectile speed and spread, based on their size? Then you can dial all ships in to have roughly the same range of engagement, and you can control what that range is
Ships aren't meant to be equal, CIG and making everything equal is silly
@@durtyred86 I'm not sure if we are on the same page regarding the HH, but I'm just gonna share my opinion. The HH should be a ship that defends a location and serves as an anker point in the battle. Light/Medium Fighters should fear the HH in a way that if they get too close, they will die. However, if they stay away, obviously nothing will happen to them as the HH is way slower and can't catch up with them. However, for that to work, the turret ranges of the HH need to be increased, so the Fighters can't hit the HH safely from far away. Additionally, their small weapons shouldn'T even penetrate the hull, that's the job of size 4 guns and up or maybe even only size 5 and up.
So, the HH wouldn't be able to free the sky of Light Fighters if they don't wanna engage, but it can safely defend a location like JT (of which we need more of in the verse) or it can keep the middle of a fleet battle clear from the pesky little mosquito fighters.
That's how I would balance it. (FYI, I am a Gladius/Scorpius Pilot and want to fly nothing else later on in the game, so you see, contrary to my playstyle, I would still like the Hammerhead to be buffed against Light Fighters as I don't even want to engage such ships in this game. I fly Light Fighters to fight other Light Fighters. That is my role and that should be the only role of that ship) But to be clear: Light Fighters and such shouldn't be nerfed like it happened in MasterModes. Instead, the HH should be buffed with actual armor and higher turret ranges.
Multi Crew ships need to be encouraged, not discouraged. There should be an exponential gain the more people that are required to crew a ship.
big ship should be force multipliers
Agreed. I still believe that a ship with 8 crew should be 8 times the 'combat weight' of a single seater.
I know it doesn't sounds "fair" but the reality is that in games of this scale, there is no "fairness" in comparing a larger more capable ship to a smaller seemingly less capable ship.
Imagine if modern day Naval combat was dominated by fishing boats with gatlings on the nose vs modern day naval warships.
CIG really painted themselves into a corner by trying to make ALL ships have some kind of edge. When in reality, the Hammerhead should ALWAYS win against small fighter squadrons, with a lower combat weight. e.g. a Hammerhead with 4 active turrets, 1 pilot, 1 engineer/turret should always win against 6 small aircraft, and as the number of aircraft increase to 7+ the difficulty for the Hammerhead to comete should rise dramatically.
The Ion and Inferno were literally made to kill ships like the Hammerhead, so that was a moot point.
You can see the *intent* behind the whole Rock Paper Scissors design for Capital ships, but when we get to the large, medium, and lights, it gets muddled.
It will come with armour, also meta now mean nothing... it can be changed in couple of days.
Not to mention that NOW you need both gunners and crew to be effective. So even a hammerhead needs 8 people with only 6 turrets
as long as we can get npc crew members. Not everyone wants to play with other people and they shouldn't be left behind.
Predictable outcomes I would say. In terms of WW2 air combat the pilots of the era said "altitude is life, speed is your saviour" Meaning that with altitude, you have more options due to a higher energy state and can dictate the terms of any engagement against lower opponents. While a higher top speed is going to get you out of trouble should you step in it. There's a lot more to say about energy states and WW2 combat but I'll leave it there.
Seeing how SC has no altitude factor, speed and maneuverability are the only two relevant factors that are ship specific. I'd claim that the only reasonable way to balance fighters vs fightesr would be to set a hard limit to SCM speed and balance things out with maneuverability vs firepower, take SCM speed out of the equation. Make missiles the tool they should be, to hit targets you can't reach with guns and force them to maneuver so that you can close in.
For repositioning during a fightllow people to enter NAV mode for higher speeds in combat, with the associated risks.
Make team vs team fights a game of geometry and positioning, and the combat will be in a good spot.
As for multicrew ships. Make them that much harder to kill. Large ships should be difficult to kill with S5 weapons and perhaps require S6 even, unless you can surgically hit key components with specialized weapons for penetration of armor. Entry level weapons for Capital ship killing would be S7-S8.
End result should be that;
1) Fighters are unable to kill Large size ships and bigger. Damage? Yes in some cases (heavy fighters) decisively kill no, not without very specialized assets.
2) Fighter vs fighter combat needs to be about positioning and maneuverability, in addition to the obvious ship configuration choices which are not tactical decisions.
3) Larger multicrewed ships needs to be much more effective against smaller ships. Why else would you even use them???
Afaik only 2 Bf-110s survived ww2 (two-seater heavy fighter), so maybe that's what cig is going for - to kill off and make obsolete the multicrew ships.. 😢
@@Schimml0rd The Bf110 was obsolete before it entered service. The idea of a rear gunner making any difference for a heavy fighter was never accurate. RLM set a requirement for a rear gunner on its heavy fighters, if that requirement had been omitted the superior Fw187 had been procured instead and undoubtedly performed better in the zerstörer role.
simple solution for multicrew ships. weapon range. size 1-3 1500m. size 4-5 3000m. size 6-8 4000m. size 9-10 6000m. this way small fighters cant get into multicrew ship weapon range without taking fire first.
Accelerate corsair or 600i to 900m/s and you'll have 7-8 kilometer firing range. The problem is you can't land hits at this distances even on bigger ships. Don't even mention light fighters. Even if they fly straight at you. So increasing the range won't do, especially with the hyroscopic turrets movement which makes leading a target even worse. Bigger ships should have their under fire shield recharge back. That is what will make fighter pilots think twice.
@@spaceman112211 size 1-3 1500m (1500 m/s velocity). size 4-5 3000m (3000m/s velocity). size 6-8 4000m(3500 m/s velocity). size 9-10 6000m(5000 m/s velocity)
Random number but you have the idea.
WTF are you talking about "accelerate Corsair and 600i ? are you one of those people ?
@@TUROCK320 thats kinda the idea. would work well for muticrew at least.
@@TheNikosawa CiG tested that by the way... bu i think they meat some technical issues. It is not as simple as that
@@TUROCK320 I'm talking about the ability to shoot over these distances even in 3.22 and before if you are firing from these particular ships at speed. Go try hit moving target at 6000m I'll take a look. I bet you'll start hitting it at around 3km or less anyway. It doesn't matter what a projectile speed is cause you need to hit a freaking pixel at this distance.
I was the Hawk pilot, and there's exactly one scenario where i potentially survive:
1. I start reverse thrust before i land
2. Immediately boost in reverse
3. Decouple and pitch 180
4. Re-enable NAV mode
5. Align and QT out
And somewhere in there find time to open the map, cancel my route, and hope you haven't caught up to me.
But i made three mistakes that doomed me.
1. I only saw a single red hostile and no neutrals, and coasted towards the hostile contemplating engaging.
2. I didn't cancel my destination
3. I took far too long to identify how many bogies i was up against.
By the time everyone throttled up and lit up my HUD, it was over.
Wait, so as a pilot thats returning, is stealth viable now?
We need a dedicated key binding for canceling am active route since forever
As a hawk pilot I will say its a bit odd that the bounty hunting light fighter didn't get interceptor tuning w/ the implementation of MM. Like why is the ship that's designed to capture fleeing bounties be unable to keep pace? The hawk is still my favorite despite all its issues from the fact that its best suited to energy builds, but its capacitors/number of weapons make that kinda hard. I hope that once it gets is mm retuning pass they consider the issues mentioned.
As an avid pvper from other games I watch these vids and I consistently just think "not yet" for when I want to actually get into SC
Yeah, i will say i am not a fan of the current state of 3.23, but i have assumed this was a problem. The whole no shields while traveling at high speeds thing is so dumb. My issues were confirmed in testing. A group of mantis had locked down crusader the other day, and there wasn't a damn thing anyone could do.
I got pulled out of quantum at least 5 times the other day and was dead within 3 seconds. That's super fun gameplay right there. (Sarcasm)
This is the same issue I've discussed over and over. The game design and goals are at odds with one another. Either we are playing battlefield or some crappy rust in space, or we are playing a space sim. The sim and the battllefield experience do not work together. You can't have the death of a spaceman and have death occur so easily. If death is happening 5 to 10 times every 2 hour play session, you're simply playing a respawn shooter with worse mechanics.
I mean, if they want to go that route thats fine, then remove the pain in the butt features that punish death and make it fun and forget the sim and all the other bs and just focus on fun.
Im sorry, but this game is DOA if the typical game session is, "spend an hour prepping, then dying the second you make your first jump." Rinse and repeat. The majority of players do not have the time nor will have this patience for that kind of loop.
I think we see the positive reaction for MM because most people have only tested it against AI. I think there is also just short sightedness against the big picture. It's a big change where there hasnt been for years, and people are just desperate for improvement.
There's more to say, but I'll end my rant for now.
lil baby man lil lil baby man oh no not my shields that wont matter when im a million miles away lil baby man
@basicallybroke672 peak star citizen commenter right here. Low IQ, zero constructive feedback, and nothing added to the conversation.
Probably a mantis owner who's happy they can finally get some use out of it trolling the verse.
Same guy who will be whining on Spectrum like a small child when the game changes again.
The shields are the least of my concerns at this point and are just one of many things that don't even make sense in the verse or from a gameplay perspective.
Try harder.
So when you get interdicted in Nav mode now you’re essentially a free kill? That’s actually broken
So basicly, wolf pack / gank squad tactics are meta.... just like every MMO ever.
The sad truth is that the average player just isn't going to listen to you until they start suffering from these issues when MM goes live. As a teacher all I can say is that you're doing a great job presenting valuable information, and it's their loss if they refuse to learn before they get burned.
Can't get burned if you uninstall ;-)
No, it’s our loss.
The sad truth is that 90% of SC players don't engage in PvP or even ship combat. To be honest, I don't blame them. We were promised a space combat simulator (which we have never gotten) but instead keep moving closer and closer to "Ace Combat: Assault Horizon" or "Blazing Angels: Squadrons of WWII"
@@solventob which is fine tbh, but i agree that the casuals, to a degree ofc ruin this potential of the game to invent a totally new style of combat unique on this planet.
the amount of times i read i should roleplay because my "pirate activities" wouldnt earn me anything if i kill XYZ person is heartbreaking tbh, i just like the thrill of him maybe bringing people or having backup next time, but ye, game is dead in this regard.
@grayssoncarl5020 "ruined more or less EVERY game that tried to mix PVE and PVE without an opt-out or opt-in for PVP." Yes. Thats why the solution is an opt-out opt-in system not a dumbed down flightmodel. Even tho a dumbed down flightmodel might be necessary for new players, but then give the option to toggle between a simple and advanced ship control. I know it's far away but they should balance around the complete game not the current 1 solar system. Pyro supposed to be something like eve nullsec while stanton kinda like lowsec and there should be high sec systems where you basically cannot grief players without losing instantly.
8:02 so, the flight model that was supposed to address jousting, basically made it meta?
Before at least, fighter vs fighter, would make jousting usually only drag the fight along, but likely the jouster eventually would lose.
Correct. And AO and a bunch of people have been saying it since it was introduced as a potential.
Player
"I love master modes"
CIG
"Thank you for your valuable feedback"
Player
"Master modes isn't ready, its not good".
CIG
"You need to test it more before giving feedback"
from what i listened to though is that cigs representative was baffled about AVG1s view when they had a crossinterview with space tomato. their perception is that vanguards go into backstrafe and kill everything smaller then them while its quite the opposite, because they have such a large amount of data and only so many outlayers of even average to good players (dedicated to fighting) there is still a lot to be done especially in the higher echelon of dedicated pilots
@Warsheep2k6 they're baffled because they don't understand their own mechanics and systems and test for the lowest common denominators
@@AKARazorback yeah thats probably the case ... they already said that this needs to be balanced so that we dont end up with a new interceptor meta(which will be coming) coming from a light fighter meta and hornet meta and honestly they should stop catering to some community idiots and just pump the game full of the tech they have at hand from sq42 and handle the issues later the community will cry either way involving and listening to the community from day one after the vote to go ham probably delayed the game too
I don't hate the idea that 1 guy won't be able to lock down a station now. get a few random low skills to attack together and you can probably push a solo off the station. Currently, if that solo player is good, you can bring 5 randoms and the solo will win.
>:)
then higher some other good players to defend the stations. That's how economy works. Also this could just be fixed by actually well performing turrets and Navy NPCs in the future. No need to just take out all the skill out of the game to achieve what you are asking for. That's the worst possible fix there could be
@@_Anaklysmos_ you literally BRING EMERGENT GAMEPLAY INTO THE SERVERS AND THEY WANT US GONE?! NO ONE CARES ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF LANDING FEES AND HOW IT BRINGS THE COMMUNITY TOGETHER!
SC was almost always skill based. Now not as much.
@@_Anaklysmos_ It seems to me that there are often times that there are no available players that have put in the weekly training to "get gud" This way, dedicated PvPers can still do their thing by flying in 2s or 3s, but 1 single ship will have a harder time locking down an entire station.
It’s such an obvious issue that a solo player can’t avoid damage, and now can’t run when dampened, that it blows my mind CIG is even considered this model even slightly good
While testing EPTU flying my Cutlass by myself I was engaged by a lone interceptor while in atmosphere. There is really nothing you can do in that situation. Many many people playing mainly PVE stuff will lose interest in the game and that's a crying shame. CIG are playing with fire here.
With the cutlass go VTOL and use the vertical thrust in decoupled mode to your advantage. It can be messy till you get the hang of it. Once you are used to it, though, you can use the vrol to compete with the drift/turn rate of those pesky fighters. ❤
you couldn't run away? That doesn't really make sense. Its a lot easier to do that now.
Truth.
We have WAY too much thruster power for the SCM speeds. It needs to take significantly more time to go from 0-100%+ SCM so managing your energy state is more involved.
There is WAY too much linear difference between fighter archtypes. There needs to be overlap between classes on some flight characteristics so heavier fighters have options in dogfights.
Interceptors need to trade acceleration for top speed instead of manuverability for top speed so they can't dictate the engagement 100% of the time.
I think repeaters need a much higher DPS than cannons, but only be able to apply DPS at short ranges to avoid cannon meta.
I think we need a limited form of constant capacitor regen to offset the pot shots (for shields) at long distance, and to foster trigger discipline (burst firing) rather than unloading the mag.
Personally I think they need to reconsider balistic shield penetration and balancing solely on ammo capacity. It's a binary, you either have enough and balistics are superior or you don't and they're inferior. It's not a suitable drawback for balancing.
Snare pulls out ppl from quantum, dampened stops them from exceeding afterburner speeds
Even now it is very hard to dodge incoming fire. How is making it even harder making the game more fun?
@FaireFionwe you should not be able to "dodge" incoming fire, nor will you be able to with projectile speeds where they are. The point is to avoid the firing cone. If you find yourself in the firing cone, you should engage in evasive maneuvers to exit the firing cone and/or effective range, not dodge projectiles. That's silly. You would need unbelievably slow projectiles.
If you want cinematic space planes, you need to tamp down the lateral thrust. WW2 in space and full 6dof are mutually exclusive concepts.
@@HitmannDDDall really good points Hitman. I've been saying that mastermodes shouldn't be a mode change on your ship, it should be based on speed. Changing "modes" should just be engaging/disengaging the speed limiter. Afterburner shouldn't give you a big top speed boost, it should give you acceleration boost (and normal acceleration should be turned away down). I completely agree that we go from 0 to 100% waaaaay too fast.
All not bad ideas. Maybe post on Spectrum?
Thinking more about the problem, they probably need to reduce the max acceleration down to like 4/5gs. If you can accelerate to max speed in
Yeah swarm of fighters are an even worse nightmare now. Ships like the size of the Corsair or tali will never ever stand a chance anymore.
Why are you talking like the game in its current state is the way the game will always be from now on?
@@photogasm5 Im not, just saying how it is right now. The game will surely get better and better updates, 75% of 3.23 were spot on fixes.
To be fair i played solo pirate swarm and i felt like corsair could hold against pve. That said, against players you are screwed.
But i felt it was easier. Canon meta i two or tri shot any small switching from one to another etc. Even standing still most of the time.
As a solo player ... I'm screwed.
stop being anti social and join a org.
@@StopYTShorts anti social doesn't mean you're shy, it means you are incapable of understanding social queues and fitting in with others.
@@StopYTShorts stop being a dick. Your kind is the reason I'm solo…
This is exactly why I’ve been a big supporter of giving medium/heavy fighters better top speeds, but worse acceleration. Similar to how it works in WW2 sims.
Big twin prop fighters held their top speed better, but had worse manuever and acceleration. Interceptors could out accelerate them but had to wait for them to make a mistake
Yeah this really needs fixing, a Hammerhead should be able to EASELY defend itself against 10+ Fighters minimum in order to fulfill its role as a Corvette. It should also not have Rhino Repeaters as the default loadout but the long range Flak canons with proximity explosive rounds.
Maybe they could add passive Role bonus effects to ships like in EvE Online where certain ship classes have different stats that influence the performance, like a " x % Bonus to accuracy and range of Size 4 Weapons." on Corvettes for example. Would make it easier to balance stuff without influencing all ships across the board.
CIG is making a big mistake. The Interceptor role should not be associated with lighter ships, on the contrary, it should be with the heaviest fighters in the game. Higher top speed, quicker master mode cooldowns but poor maneuverability due to weight. This would make it a lot easier to balance things.
Thanks for the heads up.
Looks like I have to prioritize finding an org even more now.
Dude, much appreciation for putting these videos out and for all the help you offer the community. I’ve learned so much from the education you constantly provide and watching your stream. Again, can’t thank you enough. Always looking forward to your content. 🙏🏼
What if they give turrets more range than any pilot controlled weapon, like they should have
but also projectil velocity.
Bro that literally how its supposed to be but the devs think "Oh lets not make meta = all ship weapon sizes have same range" LOL. Irdris railgun is i think size 10 and its range can fire at a planet from orbit.
While I agree that multicrew ships are still in a bad place, neither of the two people we saw in the hammerhead (the pilot and bounty target) were members of Vanguard
As a new player this is just frustrating. I really want to aggressively get better at ship combat (chasing the old ED dragon) but knowing most of the ship combat is going to be thrown on its head at a moment's notice makes me want to just wait for master modes and then jump in
This. After all this time the flight model should be mostly nailed down by now. I’ll have to spend my time in something else for 3.23. A1 has done his part to bring this to Yogi’s attention. CIG needs to address these imbalances faster
There's easy solution. Make multicrew ships what they'd really be in that scenario. Fucking shielded tanks with auto turrets that 100% ot the time hit their target regardless of target's "evasive manoeuvres" or "skill". Make them only susceptible to equally powerful large ships or big pirate gangs (e.g. 3x the amount of turrets meaning turrets take damage before they're able to take down all of the attackers). And for extra gameplay loop, add heists. You slingshot a guy to EVA onto that cargo ship, take a blowtorch to those plates, find the shield generator and blow it up. Or locate a turret, find power supply, disable, rinse, repeat. Or maybe said guy could open a hatch and silently get into the ship? After hacking some alarm. Or not so silently if he fails to hack it. Or maybe he'd be able to silently trigger the small `emergency_cargo_jettison.sh` subroutine. Or again - not so silently. Because gameplay. Tons of it! Or maybe you could lure such big ship into some kind of a trap. Or maybe you fly like three fighters one behind the other and when shields on the first one got depleted, you switch places, until you're close enough to bomb the shit out of that cargo bay. All of that makes more sense than few fighter ships taking it down. They should retire dogfighting long time ago - it doesn't work, it never will.
This is so dumb. You trying to turn the ships into skilless EVE? That's not an easy solution, that's a solution that doesn't benefit anybody.
Auto turrets that don't miss? Who tf would want that? It's bad enough the bunker turrets barely miss, maneuvering and cover is the only defense, who tf would want that for every ship in the game?
Removing skill doesn't make the game more balanced.
@@Shanex250 Who the fuck would want what? A piece of tech that we already have? That can be built on an Arduino board? The real question is: who the fuck thinks we won't have even better solutions for auto aiming in the future? Making it at least what we have in bunkers, although those are highly imprecise and slow even for today's standards, would still be better than now.
You don't know the definition of skill, my friend. Knowing when and how to use a superior tech, is a skill. You're talking about piloting an aircraft (as in: a plane), but somehow you want it to be applicable to space. That's not a skill, that's a fantasy. Soon all means of locomotion will be automated and unmanned but you want human pilots trading lives based on individual skills, the opposite of where the humanity is going right now.
And yet SC tries to "carry on the torch" of dogfights. Only it doesn't work and never will, because there's no reason for such behavior to exist in the world of SC. Same way there's no reason to get on a big multicrew ship when you know it can be taken down by a few fighters. Nobody would man such vessel. Zero volunteers. Same goes for cargo - no company would go into that business in SC's paper mache cargo ships because the base of hauling industry is the guarantee that each freight will reach its destination at least 99.9% of the time. Why? Because each time it doesn't, they have to pay for it and cover their losses. Why? Because, again, who'd insure such freight?
I don't give a fuck about your "skill" or your "balanced" - frankly, I really really don't want SC to be "balanced". All I care is immersion and that's dictated by believability of the game's world. Dogfighting in futuristic space is not believable. World being fair and "balanced" is not believable. Big ships being next to unstoppable by small fighters, is.
@cprn. your definition of making a big ship unstoppable is half dumb as shit though. Nothing wrong with them being tanky with overwhelming firepower, but to put that on top of auto aim? That's not skill chief, That's just using mechanics.
Dogfighting capability will always be a thing and will always exist. SC isn't as bad as you make it out to be and the game is unfinished, we are just getting MM in and we haven't even had the full rebalanced put in nor the armor rework.
You suggesting a game changing solution that isn't even necessary. And I'm sorry but most of the complaints is literally a skill issue, people blaming new game mechanics for their losses when they haven't fully learned it.
@@Shanex250 Here's the thing. It's not game changing. It's a very small aspect of the game that isn't even important to most players. Maybe 10% of backers right now want space combat to be what it is, mostly you-tubers with pricy stick setups (and I have nothing against them, I do stream sometimes myself and I have a stick setup, I'm just saying they're very vocal about it so it seems like a lot of people wants this - according to Spectrum, not so many).
Okay, maybe I'm going overboard with 100% hitting turrets (I want big ships to be stoppable by equally big force, not by few puny dots on the radar), but tell me this - we do have automatic defence systems in bunkers... So why not on ships? The answer is: because it'd make the life of pirates too hard. But putting those artificial restrictions in just to "force" dogfighting on players is not a way to make the game fun. It doesn't work and it's being resisted by the community for a reason.
I'm a fan of this natural gameplay where you immerse yourself in the game's world to the point you think about doing something that'd work in real life and get amazed because it fucking worked! And it encourages you to experiment and discover new things, like e.g. I found out in 3.23 that equipping a Mustang Delta with a weaker (and at the same time emitting less EM and IR) power plant, makes it virtually undetectable from more than 2km away and almost totally immune to IR and EM following missiles (with the downside of having to disable shields and guns to fly out of a hangar because thrusters need extra power for coupling and gravity compensation). If I had the old gimbals back I'd easily jump bigger fighters with it because I could unload my whole burst and take away their guns or engines before they see me. Unfortunately with new gimbals it's not for me. Imagine finding something like that yourself, e.g. finding out that throwing a grenade on a cargo hatch blows it open (because we don't have C4, I'd totally try that with C4). Or finding a way to dominate and basically tame (maybe even sell?) them dog-like kopions because you killed the alpha, or something like that. Or imagine that in a version of SC that *has* auto-turrets on big haulers, you came up with a sensible tactic to use the "noise" countermeasures to take at least one of them down? Those are truly unforgettable moments that I'd love to have more in game. Flying a ship and shooting at each other, not so much. It's boring for me. If I wanted dogfighting, I'd play a WW2 planes game.
Nice I made a feature lol It was an honor to be apart of the proof of concept.
been waiting for this video like if it was gameshark in 1999
That's a hell of a reference
The interdiction part is not significantly different to live (except that ships die quicker)
In 3.22 the Mantis can kite you just as well as in 3.23 and prevent you from jumping out.
A group of attackers against one defender that gets interdicted will win in 3.22 and 3.23
If anything in 3.23 the Mantis will die more easily if alone. Since the Mantis has been made more fragile in 3.23 compared to 3.22.
You had a better chance of getting away from the mantis in 322. Dampening now restricts you from reaching Nav speeds. Fly safe out there.
@@terry7342 Not really. A Mantis with 20km would keep on you very reliably.
And since the balance pass on the Mantis is not completed yet I figure that it will only become easier to escape the Mantis going forward.
@@pritonce6562 To some degree yes. But now it is worse if you get dampened.
Here's an idea, what if the Mantis can make a 20km interdiction bubble, but only a 5km dampening bubble, so the Mantis must activiley pilot to keep you there. Sure that is rather unrealistic, why would you get pulled out of QT at 20km but could engage QT within that range? But honestly, with MM we've already made a big leap away from 'realism' anyway.
@@raven9ine that is already the case. Just with 12km Dampening. CIG can only reduce it further by implementing cooldowns for example but there is probably no time for that in 3.23.0
We'll just have to wait what they make of it in the long run, personally I'm more interested in the fleet combat meta. I'm assuming capital ships will receive massive cannons with longer ranges and fully automated point defence guns as a deterrent for missiles and small fighters. Not to mention the repair/support mechanics and armour implementations of carriers and dedicated ships etc.
There's probably going to be a rock/paper/scissors balance in the end, it's just that not everything is in the game yet. However the Hammerhead should probably receive an upgrade, judging from the clip, as it is marketed as a fighter screen for the fleet in the first place.
Actually, the best solution will probably be a weapon balance pass, coupled with speed tuning and iterations. It seems more realistic bigger guns would just have larger ranges, speeds and damage output and/or more area saturation.
Nevertheless naval ship composition has always been important in real life fleets as well, so it most certainly will play a role in the end game combat.
Whoa whoa I feel lost without our pink avenger leading us. Finally got some good lighting!
A1 you're doing God's work here.
Please keep making these types of videos and keeping highlighting how bad this problem is!
Most players don't know it because they don't see it so this helps to expose the massive flaws in the new MM flight model.
4:00 for the start of the ship stuff
This is all great. I love these videos. HOWEVER........ Most of us play Star Citizen where we have to do bounties and fight between astroids or in atmosphere in the dark. These strats will get you killed in seconds as you smash into a rock or the ground... Need to see a vid showing how to effectively do those kind of missions at higher levels.
Ah, ground, my nemesis. TBF though ground/asteroids are a threat no matter what strategy you pick.
Bait post? If you're a breathing human with a pulse you shouldn't be hitting non moving objects lmao
@@de5pa1r34 OK champ. Did you read what I said? That using the tactics in this video will get you killed vs Rocks and ground environments... Not that you can't avoid it. I was asking for a realistic video to combat HRT and up bounties in the new flight model.
Yeah anyone who doesn’t pay attention to their surroundings will get killed by these. Any competent pilot will easily be able to avoid those obstacles.
@@riaanaucamp1472 what tactics would make you run into rocks lol? You can simply fly away on a vector that doesn't have a rock 💀💀
What's the difference between going to NAV in MM and just trichording away at 1200 m/s in LIVE? At least these fights are resulting in ships dying and not an hour of trichording where a 5 on 5 might result in 1 dude dying.
The difference is that going to nav mode takes 3 seconds and you lose all shields.
Yes but let’s say I’m in a msr and engaged by 3 hornets and I need to get away… I switch to nav mode and lose my shields, in my book a bigger ship should be able to tank those 3sec before I get way.
You saying that’s not possible?
Because in PU not every fight needs to end in destruction. That's why the initial idea of MM works for AC, but is misplaced in the PU where you need to consider players woth other focuses than PvP ship combat. Which I suppose is why the made switch times lower now, and possibly also because long mode switch times make traveling an absolute chore.
@@raven9ine I'm one of those weirdo players that usually does industrial things, or some bunker runs, or when I've got a real itch to push limits I'll go do some PvE bounties. The moment they announced MM my thought was largely that they were screwing everyone but PvP players. I tried my best and kept waiting to hear how it would all make sense. Then CIG announced in video that NAV mode means no countermeasures of any kind, and no defenses, as well as a time to swap over where you become even MORE vulnerable, AND that you'd need to be in SCM to scan, mine, salvage, or, y'know, actually do anything.
It get so much worse when you realize that in current Live, mining often means a lot of moderate distance traveling while constantly scanning to find a rock worth caring about, then getting close and breaking it up and gathering, then moving to the next. Mining is going to be punishing with how often a pilot will need to swap modes and submodes to have the slightest chance of being efficient with time. That's completely ignoring any effect this has on how an industrial ship will fare in combat with the changes.
All i heard was, a solo McHawk, with ballistic scatterguns is meta. 🙃
I've been enjoying hawk scattergun on npc ships at least haha.
The simple reality is the issue with the hammerhead/turrets is not damage rate of fire, tracking or player skill/accuracy its a simple issue of range/speed
The hammerheads turrets could do 1/10th of their current damage, but if they had 6000m range hitscan speed they would be a 6 km no fly zone for fighters because the second you get inside 6 km you just start slowly dying
the old old tachyon cannons would unironically be amazing for turrets, because hitscan means you can apply consistent damage.
turrets, of any kind, currently cannot apply damage, either due to range, or projectile speed, or both.
We can fix it when bigger sized weapons also mean more range power projectile speed, every size3 weapon should outperform any size2.
I get you and appreciate what you're saying. As far as numbers go I don't see much difference from before though. Competent and coordinated pilots in superior numbers have been able to have their way for years. I'd love to see you guys dig harder into the mechanics by, say, taking down Hammerheads with single interceptors. Or maybe see what1-2 skilled pilots with meta setups can do against a random group. Say a Reclaimer with an escort or two. I'd love to see that.
Dampening clearly needs to have a max size, that accumulates with other allies. Because a mantis blocking a massive Qdrive alone is weird. Perhaps it should delay it alone, and perhaps two or more are needed to fully block it from spooling a larger sized qdrive
As an ex Elite Dangerous player, we've had "master modes" for years and it's so funny that people here are struggling with it, we've been switching combat and analysis mode for a while. Great translation of controls.
I played 3.23 long enought to said this: it's different but it's not bad as 3.18 - which I saw couple times ppl said this: 3.23 is as bad as 3.18. It's not bad, it introduce a lot differences.
My Perspective as a solo, mostly industrial player: Oh gawd no.
I agree that these are all problems, however: Interceptors being the bane of fighters is to be expected. That is their role. But they should not excel at fighting anything else but fighters, let alone anti-fighter sub captial ships like the HH. Turrets should get a range and/or projectile velocity boost. They still have limited angles, so fighters can duck and weave and get out of LoS. They are also still attached to a (usually) relatively large ship, so they are easy targets. And you need a Pilot and a gunner at least, or you will be a sitting duck. In a "fair" 2v2 fight that would still mean one turret with a decent hit chance, but two individual fighters, of which only one can be fought at a time, and only *if* they get into the turret's field of view. In my head, that seems a lot more fair.
A Multicrew ship would have a semi-easy time to defend against a single fighter (which IMO it should), a 2vs2 would be down to skill, and getting swarmed would still be a death sentence.
Short term fix but what if cannons had a shorter range and hold to charge fire state and repeaters had an increased range?
We need more effective missiles for Capital ships and more missiles for bigger ships and better turret coverage to force close range and have it be a game of pilot and turret Gunner skill as to who wins the fight
That's old school Boom and Zoom tactics. It's simply playing to your advantages. Just as it is in real life, speed equals life. You're trading speed for maneuverability, so you simply have to be aware of how much you can afford to lose based on the scenario.
Am I right in interpreting your recommendation "Go with a friend" as really meaning: "Make sure there are more of you than there are of them"? Assuming we all fly Interceptors, is it just the group with the largest total DPS that wins? Will we all just bunch up in the largest orgs and fly around in hordes?
That's how i read it and from my experience playing MM. You need a wing man more than ever, but honestly in the first example shown here they just fought better in the bucs. Didnt' seem the mkII were organized and focus targeting?
@@Bennisim66 The problem for the mk2:s is that they are speed-walled, so the Bucs scatter into a cloud around the mk2:s, select a target, then all fly in against that target, take it out, then scatter again. Since the mk2:s are speed-walled, the game engine literally doesn't permit them to get at the Bucs. They could temporarily try boosting to give chase and take out a Buc, but boost is a quickly depleted resource and the targeted Buc can always counter-boost making it relatively faster than the boosting mk2:s again, while spending all of the mk2:s boost at the cost of one Buc's boost.
@@sc_cintara also straight lining the mk2 making them easier targets for the rest of the cloud
@@Warsheep2k6 Yes, that straight-lining of the mk2:s is another effect that arises from the speed-wall. You could also say carelessness, but really, what can they do if they can't even try to chase the interceptors?
That first fight is some bomber bar tactics
Are your tests considering possible biases? Did you make sure to cycle members of each “team” for these tests?
Yes, and like I said we have run many tests, the results when pilot skills are equalized is very clearly in the buccaneers favor
@@Avenger__One i knew it ... interceptor DCS for ever ! Boom & Zoom IL sturmovik tacticool
Someone must be really naive to believe in unbiased opinions. Even science is biased nowadays.
@@il2csichannel298 Of course but it is better thant stay ignorant.
In 1 or 2 month the opinion will be more accurate :)
(Never perfect)
@@TUROCK320 Changing my mind is not happening.
I see what you're trying to do here Avenger and I hope it works!
Just the kind of videos we need Keep the info coming thx
Thank you 🙏
As a dedicated cargo hauler, I've noticed the increasing popularity of piracy as a gameplay feature. Surprisingly, I don’t mind it-piracy adds an exciting dimension to the game. However, there's a major concern that needs addressing: the unfair advantage pirates have when they attack traders in areas without comm stations. Currently, these attacks often go unpunished, and it's frustrating to be repeatedly ambushed by players this way and not being able to retaliate.
To enhance gameplay fairness and balance, I propose an innovative solution: equipping the Cutlass Blue with a 10-20km comm station range. This would allow traders to hire Cutlass Blue pilots for protection. The presence of a Cutlass Blue could enable traders to send out a distress signal with a single button press during an attack, providing a fair chance for assistance. This feature would add a strategic layer for both traders and pirates, where pirates would need to first disable the Cutlass Blue to prevent the distress signal from being sent.
Incorporating this idea could significantly improve the gameplay experience. Traders would feel more secure, knowing they have a viable means of calling for help, while pirates would face a more balanced challenge. If the pirates manage to disable the Cutlass Blue, the gameplay reverts to its original state, maintaining the risk and excitement of piracy.
This solution not only enhances fairness but also enriches the game’s strategic depth. It's a win-win for both cargo haulers and pirates, fostering a more engaging and dynamic in-game environment.
What do you think?
dude, i have to give credit when credit is due. you are 100% correct about 3.23 combat/MM. I usually disagree with your takes, but regarding this topic, you speak the truth.
You're always so well spoken, A1. Thanks for everything you do for the game :)
Thank you 🙏
Man the Hammerhead is a joke in Master Modes. The sad truth is that every multi-crew ship faced the same problem before Master Modes. The meta remains the same - multi-crew is dead in the water. This is disappointing. What Master Modes achieves is bringing the problem home to the fighters category of ships. At least the fundamental problem is now being highlighted rather than overlooked cause of light fighters not having experienced this.
multi crew ships are just fundamentally broken, the guns on them just arent big enough to make the lack of mobility worth it. You can't tweak them without completely redesigning them or changing the weapons and inadvertently buffing small fighters
yogi already addressed this. they're working on it
This is why I was so against master modes. They are making combat changes based off a single combat point, velocity. Shields are not done, armor is not done, and I dont think weapon tiers are fully fleshed. Changing combat based off one single point of combat is soooo bad!
I appreciate you guys doing the testing to find the meta, to improve MMs
Great video, thanks for the info and all the testing you and company do. MM quickly became stale and I didn't understand why until I watched a few of your videos. Let's hope for some drastic changes sooner rather than later.
Nice! good job too all Pilots who do this for us all!!
cig should speak more with you!
What if they reduced the range of the quantum dampeners to have to be within firing range of all but the scatter guns firing range?
You can be a pill in your presentation but you are not wrong. Multicrew needs some serious bonus love. Thanks for this info bud
1. The "egg shaped" thrust asymmetry needs to get much narrower and pointy-er so pilots need to actually change heading to effectively change their velocity vector. (except for maybe special ships with highly vectored thrust like the Fury).
2. The bigger the guns, the longer the range and higher the velocities of the projectiles should be, so a Hammerhead's cone of fire and accuracy is much greater than the fighters attacking it.
3. The smaller the platform (less mass), the less accurate the platform - meaning that because small ships are vibrating and are affected by recoil more, their guns' firing cone should be wider. A size 7 gun on a tiny ship like an Ion or Inferno is nerfed by this accuracy loss, forcing it to close the distance to a target, and the same should be true for interceptor ships.
Why couldn't the hammerhead land shots on the mantis? Is the mantis too fast, or does it stay outside the effective range of the hammerhead weapons? In other words, what capability does the hammerhead lack
It stayed at 10 km outside of missle and laser range
I don't really engage in metta chasing, but it is good to know what the metta is.
Wish they modled their archetypes after IRL fighter rolls.
A lot of these issues that people are talking about in the comments is due to the fact that Armor is not a thing.
Hammerhead for example, will become superbly tanky when the Armor is suddenly bouncing, or eating 80% of the LF's shots, with minimal to zero damage. Especially when module damage becomes a thing, and just hitting a ship in a dead zone will result in absolutely nothing of consequence happening.
I'd swear one of the biggest issues is gun ranges for the slower speed of the ships. We need ranges decreased to make turrets even remotely viable.
The other thing is I believe is ship death times seem a little fast. Interceptors need the inherent weakness of being low armored to trade for speed, where as those hornets really should be quite a bit more. No matter what CIG has options for balance and I trust they will try a few things, I just hope they don't take forever to implement changes and see how they go.
I get why this is important. But I also feel like so many people overlook how important the ground game is going to be. All the fancy flying in the world isn't going to help you in an FPS fight. Having a squad of ace pilots who can't FPS for shit isn't going to help you. Case in point the engineering mode currently on the PTU... I have single handedly won several of those rounds because Im good at FPS and have completely thrashed people who are good pilots.
The way the game is leaning individual dog fighting skill isn't going to be the deciding factor, you're going to need a mix of people who are good at different things to accomplish larger goals. Bunch of single seat fighters flying around isn't going to be what wins the day once server meshing and stuff exists and once the engineering stuff comes into play.
So while its important, I think guys like this over state its importance. There is alot more going on than flight mechanics, and yeah its a big part, but its not the only part and if you over focus on that the rest of the game will suffer.
Master modes is a necessary step towards the MMO they're trying to make, as much as it might suck.. its not going to go anywhere.
right. nobody dumped all this money into star citizen for the l33t 1v1 me bro mentality. we're here for multi crew.
Okay but to get to said fps ground portion of the game you have to "fly" there right?, so what happens when your in the cutty, and I'm in the mantis?........your done, what happens when your in a c1, and I'm in a arrow .........your done, this is the part where you say that's all big ships vs little so w/e, but unfortunately, that's a likely scenario, and trolls will rule the day. In order to fps, you gotta get to your destination first, and you can't get there, no matter what ship your in, your not gonna wanna play because your game loop isn't being realized. Although I like MM because of the way the ships feel during scm mode, the issues are BLATANT.......period, and in my honest opinion, apart from being interdicted a mantis or Antares, or being shut down by emp's, the ability to gtfo of a fight is what needs improvement, because if I am flying a particular ship, and I want you dead for w/e reason, no amount of fuckery will save you, or me if I happen to be the pray, the chance of getting away is slim to none atm, and that is the issue
Question: For short engagements, would ballistic cannons give a significant advantage? Or are ammo pools still too small even for a one-off?
@avenger Who wins between 1vs1 2vs2 or 5vs5 on Origin 325a vs Hornet MK2? 325a has Buccaneer speed profile so shouldn't it win?
Bravo A1, a great way to handle this. Showcase showcase showcase, make it the issues with the model so prevalent it gets fixed
Overall i like the master mode idea. Obviously combat tweeks can be done after. Its good to identify all these things here so they can be addressed.
The best solution is to have PvE and PvP servers. Anything else, will damage the longevity of Star Citizen.
This will not help in the way you think, separation of servers will harm SC, but separation of systems will benefit all
I guess if they refuse to listen to feedback then this is the only way to force them to learn from their mistake and this meta will kill the game along with ship sales. After waiting for so long for this master mode change, I'm gutted and don't even want to logon.
to be fair though i havent encountered many pvp fights out of the blue like the one they showcased with the hawk and when i did we were mostly two fat targets, with around 56 of rattler missiles, making hell out of targeting and mostly popping the QD in the first volley or not being swarmed by fighters but 2 people that thought its funny to pop some c2s, so just running standart pve gameloops isnt an issue. when i forced myself to pvp it was with a hornet ghost or sabre playing cat and mouse with bounties with questionable piloting skills.
You should login and try it. I've been having tons of fun.
The solution for the fight model is not MM. It's simple, Use the blackout mechanic properly. This affects the pilot not the ship, so ship performance matters in regards to mass to thrust ratio but G force and G lock will limit how ships interact as ships can't engage if the pilot is unconscious. At high velocity kiters will be greatly inhibited in regards to manoeuvrability and thus will fly flat. At low velocity ships will be more manoeuvrable to do high G (7-12 G) manoeuvres for short bursts. Higher than 12 -13 G's not velocity is the problem. Large ships with gravity generators should be immune to this but their low mass to thrust ratio already limits them to kiting. The only thing CIG would need to add to the game is better pilot to control controls for the Velocity and G limiter. Pilot set button controlled presets would replace MM and allow pilots to adjust them to the ship and flight style for pushing the limit or comfort and control. It would be easy for CIG to tweak a couple of variables to globally affect all pilots in ships without gravity generators to bring about the game play they desire.
I would strongly recommend NOT utilizing railguns on turrets. It is very easy to exploit the charge cycles to get in close to the target. You can also cheese the ranges easier because of the nerf to RG ranges.
Mastermodes: "we'll add three distinct speed brackets for ships, toggle shields and weapons on the fly, allow players to zoom on on components, it will add lots of flavor and complexity to the game"
3.23: "moar ship + cannon = win"
That defeat in detail has become a viable tactic is a step in the right direction. Also seems to me the Hornets fought their own craft wrong. They need to tighten up and not allow the interceptors to pick off a single straggler.
😆 🤣 oh trust me they tried, but try it yourself and find out
@@Avenger__One Even if people try they aren't going to be very good at it the first few times. All those old habits die hard.
I am not melting or changing what ship packages I own. The current meta (cannon Buccaneer) is something that would have gotten absolutely WRECKED in the old system. Best just to hold onto the ship packages you already own rather than try and buy something meta with IRL money because S-Tier is always one patch away from F-Tier and vice versa. I am sure my Arrow can handle any PVE needed to get the money for a Bucc or something. If Bunker missions are unborked the Cutter can do the job.
I think we also need to consider future features which will be required for true balance: i.e., armor and sub-components of ships.
Armor should protect ships and is required for reasonable weapon characteristics to be applied. Also, fighters attacking larger ships should be attacks on sub-components and weapons to reduce the ship in detail, rather than focusing DPS against overall hull health.
Great work as always Avenger. Thanks for letting us know what's good.
Another thing that is never been discussed or touched on by all of us here and CIG are missiles...
There is ZERO reasons why a missile can't be more lethal in space combat than what we have right now in the game...
There is no drag in space. That means that a missile should have the ability to overcome a simple chaf and flare... But what do we see in the game? Someone shoots a missile at us, we just dump some countermeasures and that's it! Missile evaded...
WTF? Why? In air combat you have to break and defend against the missile in various ways... And in space this should be WAY harder! Because now the missile should even be able to stop mif flight and re aquire target or do a 180 turn or whatever, since there is no atmosphere in space.
CIG needs to fix missiles, make them the deadly weapons that they SHOULD be in future space combat.
So that a big ship can defend itself from pilots. You can even create a new type of ship operator, someone who remotely shoots and controls a missile until it hits the target.
That would be a very cool gameplay element and bring some more life to mutli crew gunships.
Yup, as DCS / IL 2 players i have to say this is broken and not their priority in the game ! at all !
Missiles is not a game changer ! it will be not !
Fox 1 / Fox 2 / Fox 3 - CAS or BVR = NOPE dude !
Star Citizen : clunky CAS missiles
#TalonShrike my love
But i agree !
My nazi solution = Add "MISSILES SETUP" removing canon loadout !
For exemple the Talon SHRIKE full missile only (but useless).
We could have a "missiles" gameplay
@@TUROCK320 Yes that's so unfortunate... Because missiles can fix so many MM problems. I play DCS myself and I can see the potential in this, I don't understand why CIG had forgotten about missiles... Either they are incompetent to correctly code them, or they think that they are not cool enough for them or both. Anyhow, I hope im wrong and CIG one day will fix missiles...
@@TUROCK320 We could have so much! Heat seeking misiles, radar missiles, remote controlled missiles, missiles that shoot down other missiles as countermeasures...
Except there are dozens of people complaining about the opposite -- saying missiles are too strong and overpowered and there is no way to dodge them unless you dump lots of chaff. I think missiles are fine, but there are people who complain about the in/effectiveness of missiles non-stop. I don't think CIG will ever be able to win in that regard and should just keep them as is.
Also the down side to the new combat system is the new "Overly saturated RED" markings that clutter the target and you can not make out your lock on target. They got to change that for sure!!!
once they start to add trade offs on roll rate, pitch, yaw for certain set conditions it should start to loosen it up a bit, also air density penalties with altitude and mass etc in atmo, the higher the DPS capability the more sluggish you should be and they should design the classes around that.
A1, thank you for not having the conspiracy theory music in the background, gives you a lot more credibility :D Off to buy a Bucc while i still can...
[× files intensifies]
This was a good video. Thank you! One question - what happened to the lag pib? Is it still in the game? If so, how can I get it back as an option? Sorry, if this is a very noob question.
CR: "lets make dogfights slower and closer"
CIG: "how about we do the exact opposite?"
Dev: "you want me to...artificially cap the throttle just so they can use their guns?"
Fun: "I'll show myself out"
Logic: "I can't even"
Looking at DPS Calculator, comparing the FL-33 Laser Cannon vs Attrition 3 Laser Repeater, the Attrition 3 outperforms in almost every catagory. Attrition 3 Burst DPS (844), Fire Rate (250rpm), Alpha DMG Min/Max (145), Ammo Speed (1000mps), Ammo Range (2600m). The FL-33 performs less at Burst DPS (506), Fire Rate (350rpm), Alpha DMG Min/Max (121), Ammo Speed (1800mps), Ammo Range (2592m). If you had to choose between the two, would you still choose the Cannon or go with Attritions?
Your effective range with those attritions is far less than the FL33 due to the velocity being so low. You need to get real close to apply that synthetic full DPS number. It's easier to apply a much greater portion of cannon DPS, at a far greater range.
☠Avengers! Fine PSA thanks ✊🏽 Avengerrr-ONE!
i dont understand ,im new to star citizen but from my understanding on this plroblem is every one wants a Mazda Miyata to have the same handeling and peformence of a BMW m4 40
Thanks for testing and providing CIG with valuable feedback! o7
Thank you for this content saves me a hella time trying to figure out these game changes!
I’ve never been interested in space ship combat be it PVP or PVE until master modes. Sorry but light speed jousting is dumb, I get it the players who have been testing this game for years have gotten used to it and have figured out how to be good pilots in a broken alpha system but it’s not interesting gameplay at all. If master modes makes it feel more like a dog fight I’m 100% for the change. I’ll worry about the small balance changes later
I honestly think that all size guns should have a flak option. Yes one that takes ballistic ammo so you cant have flak rounds forever, but effective enough so that turrets are able to do something. Or if possible, make it so that only turrets can have flak options so that it doesn't turn into a meta of every ship loading out flak in fighter v fighter. That would make attacking larger ships scary and unless something like a heavy fighter squad is attacking in intervals, the HH will make easy work of them.
Is this fun? I'll be honest it looks like a real awful meta. As the person being kited u literally can not do anything and are helpless and that feeling of helplessness isn't really a fun one... This doesn't look like a good direction for the game, do you have any suggestions to help alleviate the core issue? I know from another open world pvp game there was a weapon that had the ability to engage or disengage at will (It had 2 mobility skills vs most other weapons which had 1) but it suffered from low damage and could be caught with good cooldown management (if u cancelled one if the mobility skills or the user didn't get enough distance with it) but I don't know how that could apply for star citizen
Its crazy that fights are being pushed even further apart with MM than before. This was not the intent, but i guess thats what happens when systems arent tested properly.
I mean no disrespect, but what do you mean by 'when systems aren't tested properly?'
This is alpha. This is when systems are implemented (and to some extent tested). You expect them to test these systems completely BEFORE they're implemented in the alpha build?
What is it you think we're doing as players?
Interesting seeing another tier list video and had the buccaneer placed in F tier.. o.0..