Star Citizen - CIG Reverts Boost Changes - Crunch Time Ahead Of CitizenCon Get NORDVPN Discount | nordvpn.com/boredgamer Tobii Eye Tracker 5 | tobii.gg/boredgamer Insider Gaming 7 Day CIG Work Week Video | ruclips.net/video/nNSncpohm2U/видео.html Become a Channel Member | ruclips.net/user/BoredGamerUKjoin Get a Star Citizen Account & Bonus | boredgamer.co.uk/enlist Try Incogni 60% Off - Take Control Of Your Privacy | www.boredgamer.co.uk/incogni Support On Patreon | www.patreon.com/BoredGamer Get GameGlass | www.boredgamer.co.uk/gameglass Donate To The Channel | www.boredgamer.co.uk/donate Direct Paypal Donations | paypal.me/boredgamer Discord | discord.gg/boredgamer Twitch | www.twitch.tv/boredgameruk Twitter / X | twitter.com/BoredGamerUK Reddit | www.reddit.com/r/BoredGamer/ Podcast | soundcloud.com/boredgameruk Checkout Hasgaha's Screenshots | www.hasgaha.com/gaming-screenshots/ LATEST STAR CITIZEN PATCH ALPHA 3.24.2 EVOCATI
change is inevitable I know that but for the push to multi crew, I think focusing on blades and AI crew would be more important to come out with first before poorly changing ships function. The Corsair would have been better off lowering gun size and giving it a bit more speed. giving the copilot control of two guns means they can't use remote turret. so two guns even fully crewed won't work. this does not make sense logically especially to lower dps for solo player. Id wish they would have thought more about this before doing this two a ship. if there was a third seat in corsair sure I could see that. but there is not. so ya know I heavily disagree with this move. Yogis excuse does not equate. and if thats the first "stab" it was not thought through well at all.
I GET wanting to make the ships more multicrew, but the Corsair already has its remote turrent that you need the co pilot to even use as it is. I just feel this is a weird change, hell I would prefer they reduce the size of the weapons or something if they feel it needs a nerf rather than taking the guns away from my pilot control. The ship already flys like a brick and isnt as tough as some equivalent's. Its weapons loadout is what set it apart from say the Connie.
Also this idea is so asinine, no plane EVER had fixed forward facing guns operated by anyone but a pilot. WHY would you need someone to press a button.
To put it simply yogi is audio engineer/programmer by background. He has no background in data analytics, which he uses as the pretext for his changes. The distribution of the corsair's use is well outside of even a Pareto distribution and even if it were that's always the most statistically natural distribution of any set of preferences when you have proper balance in a game.
I DON’T get making more ships multicrew. At all. What percent of people at any given time actually play with a crew? Multicrew sounds neat, but it’s a pipe dream. That’s not how people actually play, and this game has way too much friction and time-sink for it to be a reality.
@@molboard98 I think the largest contributing factor to people not playing multicrew (lest its aboard a reclaimer) is the simple fact that the mission payout scheme's are only conducive to solo play. We're starting to see glimpses of reasons to not just take multiple ships but that's going to be pointless for as long as credits are split in half for each person you bring along. I don't understand why its so hard for CIG to realize that doubling the grind for everyone if playing with so much as 1 additonal person would be conducive to co-op play.
I think corsair kills isn't a good metric for saying it is over powered. It could just be popular. I think they could just downgrade the guns if it were OP rather then making this cumbersome change.
I think the ship is just extremely popular. I see them everywhere now. I've had one a long time now. It removes the point of the turret the co pilot already has access to. Isn't the joke of drake ships that they're all used by pirates too??
The entire selling point of the Corsair is that it was op with guns but you put your life at risk with its weak armor and shields. This kills the idea behind the ship as far as I understand it
You have no idea how they calculate kills. It's very unlikely that they're just looking at total kills by a Corsair, they understand more about statistics than you seem to. They're referring to Corsair total kills by Corsair total users, and probably involving how the ship is being used in some way as to exclude people that use the Corsair as a transport to do bunkers or to do cargo.
So basically the thing with the Corsair is whoever is in the co-pilot seat will just be clicking their fire button whenever the pilot has an enemy ship in their sights and is also firing their guns? So your job is to essentially sit their and periodically click one button. Im all for multi-crewing ships but god does that sound boring lol
@@senn4237 Depending on how the do Torpedoes, but the their should be someone manning the radar changes the different modes to try and get through the counter measures, and the revers side for an EW operator, that would be a good game play.
And scanning, missiles, running to put out fires, maybe some engineering, we don't know yet he might be directing NPCs, changing out computer blades and maybe helping out with medical.
Ya. The corsair change is absolutely dumb. Seems like nobody thought this through at all. " Wait. people are having too much fun with it. Make the copilot press a button!" Did they forget how they marketed to e corsair in the first place?
so dumb and means i will not buy anything else with new money from now on since what i buy i wont be able keep what buy due to balancing or is it to get use buy something else
@@stevechil5226 never said it was.... It was however marketed a certain way. Trere were better ways to balance this out. Going down a gun size for instance.
I dont even own a Corsair, but the change is a load of bull. If they're worried that HHs are dying too fast, how about buffing the HHs instead of nerfing the Corsair?
Corsair nerf doesn't make sense and feels very manipulative. Take an old ship that's still a favorite and nerf it....sounds like a recipe to sell a new ship. Hate this, finally got enough real world capital to buy the corsair and 1 month later they nerf it. Seems to really be the way it goes. Leave it alone, or take the wing weapons. Its then just the same as the connie.
The Corsair and redeemer changes (nerfs) weren’t meant to balance the game. It was meant to encourage players to buy the new upcoming ships that are releasing this month and in IAE. CIG has been doing this for more than a year now. I’m surprised people are still making it out to be a bad balancing system. Seeing how everyone is reacting, I’d confidently say they accomplished their mission. Simple, but seemingly effective execution.
The corsair already flies like a damn brick, it really just feels like there doing this to sell the new ships because it makes no sense to have FORWARD FACING FIXED GUNS to be controlled by a copilot, especially when he cant even aim them and he already has control over the remote gun turret, and the excuse they used that it has to many kills is stupid, so your going to nurf every popular ship just because they have to many kills? Anyone with even a bit of flying skills would absolutely take out the corsair just by staying away from the front of it especially if there is only 1 person on the ship. Again it just looks like they did it to sell the newer ships.
the corsair changes are beyond bizarre. If they want more multi crew gameplay, buff the existing turrets or give the corsair a chin turret. If they are testing for a chin turret, what is gained from the current testing ? if they want to lower pilot damage without creating a "dedicated button pusher" job, remove the wing guns or lower the gun size. so many choices that can "nerf" the corsair without creating a role that no one in their right mind would ever want to play.
Years ago I saw a mini-doc about the development of one of the halo games. It seemed like the crunch at Bungie was 18-36 hour days, 7 days a week, for a month or more.
I just got the corsair the day before this change was known, it has been my favorite ship for a while because of the massive firepower and awesone look/design. Now im considering melting it already. But i have no clue what ship i want to replace it...
I think the reduction in pilot weapon sizes would be fine if they made the handling better and the turrets more effective. But they won't do that, because they fundamentally misunderstand their own game and how actual players fly.
exactly this. as a corsair enjoyer, i dont care how "overpowered" or underpowered my ship is. But i do care about the fun. And the 4 guns right in my view going "BRRRRT" is hella fun. So they remove part of the fun for the pilot, and create a role that is literally anti-fun ? What.
They could’ve just downgraded the weapons. The Corsair co pilot already had the ability to use the remote turret. Them making that choice of changing the amount of guns being used isn’t the problem. They can easily lower the size of guns and that can still keep the ship in a position where the pilot would have to have better skill and effort into getting the kills. They made a very bad decision now they will definitely see a drop in sells for the Corsair. Plus they’re adding engineering in 4.0 that alone will be a massive nerf to all ships.
I have not played SC enough to like or hate the new master modes but when I start playing more the re-balances will be something I will have to adjust to.
If I understand it right, corsair don't need nerf. It'll naturally get nerfed when armor goes online since in lore drake ships have less or no armor at all. So it'll end up as a glass cannon.
@@ronelicabandi9706 It already is a glass cannon. The Corsair has 91k total HP, but the Constellation has 161k, both have 4x S5 guns, with the 2x S4 guns, that fall off the Corsair wings if you look at them too long, being the only difference in firepower.
I like the idea of OPTIONAL weapon controls splitting between players. Which that's what it should be, OPTIONAL. And how the hell can you base it on "amounts of kills". That only tells us that it's a popular ship. What about the Constellation? You can fire all those guns and if you are a decent pilot, the Connie will beat the Corsair in a dogfight 7 or 8 times out of 10. I mean, we're talking close to 700 years in the future... there is NO reason to be mimicking today's technology. In the future, I highly doubt... let me rephrase that; I KNOW that we won't need a co-pilot to fire a group of guns that are fixed on the SAME forward position. Sh!t, we don't need it NOW. Our 5th-Gen fighter jets only need one person to operate everything. Yes, the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lighting are fighter jets but they have a TON of features and a lot of firepower which can all be operated by ONE person. The Corsair is NOT big by any means and again, all the guns are fixed in a forward facing position (except for the turrets which I have my issues with their effectiveness already). I get the multi-crew gameplay mechanics. I like to play with people here and there. But there are MANY other things we can implement for that. It just comes down to content. The answer is NOT making something completely unrealistic just because someone got lazy with balancing. But I agree that we need more multi-crew gameplay but save that for the really big ships and stop messing with our favorite multi-role ships that we like to run solo. I play the vast majority of my time solo and I want to be able to enjoy a wide variety of ships by myself. And I know for a FACT that most people fly solo most of the time so if I'm flying my Corsair and I don't have a chance to take out an effing Arrow because my ship is from the 1900s and can only fire a couple guns when I'm doing some solo hauling. I mean, what's the point of the space in the rear of the Corsair? It's too small to be splitting the cost of a load of goods with 2 or 3 people unless you're running Vice or Eggs or something. But who wants to ONLY do that? But, we will see what ahppens. Things are going to change... and change again... then again and AGAAAAIIIIIIIIN... so we have to embrace the suck at times and learn to LOVE IT LONG TIME!!!
the change to the corsair is stupid giving 2 guns to a co pilot who has a turret rather than moving the main guns a size down and turrets up 1 to spread out the firepower
@@RakugothDajjal there are multiple ways they could have done it that don't effect anyone's gameplay in a huge way, but they're going to crowbar multicrew in anyway they can i just feel sorry for people who have used the corsair, loved it then bought it even i was considering dumping another hundred or so to upgrade from my cutty till this happened
Ya that what i was thinking.. but maybe ther eplan is to keep DPS the same by turning the lower 2 Gun in to a Bottom Turret that can move on it onw, making the Corsair in to a Max DPS with 3 crew members v 2 crew
Crunch sucks. I remember working retail management and I had to work 65 hour a week for 6 to 8 weeks straight for the holidays. Got nothing in return, as I was a salary employee. I feel for CIG but 2 weeks doesn't sound so bad. Also didn't Red Dead go through some hellish crunch which I believe 10 weeks, everyday had to be in the office and required stay overnights. Legit people where sleeping at their desk. Terrible.
The Ion now the Corsair, this might be my last Citizen Con small things maybe, but small things add up. That's no way to treat people that made you rich and helped build your dream.
Our thoughts on this (for which you asked): what sold us at the beginning of SC was Chris's stated vision of real world physics in game especially for ships and battle. We gave him a lot of our money, loyalty, and patience to allow him to deliver and for a time, we were rewarded with his vision being realized. Then we got MM. Now we're told the their latest change to speed, which they removed, was just a foretaste of things to come? We were lied to, again, by a company we gave our loyalty. CIG continues to show us what low regard (if not contempt) they have for their supporters. We are also beginning to realize that, instead of being a unique and realistic space game, that CIG is going to deliver a glorified version of a cross between EVE Online and Mario Karts 64; yet we all we get blithely from you is company excuses without the actual reasoning behind it...
If this is the case, they need to remove the Conni Andro as a starter pack. Starter packs should only be acceptably soloable ships... that might even scratch the Freelancer when I think about what CIG is aiming for.
@@RavingNut They just need to sell an "early access" ticket, and keep selling skins and stuff, but STOP SELLING SHIPS. Not only are they are driving away a massive audience of people by doing that, they keep putting massive amounts of development hours into ships that dont actually have any use in the game yet.
@@Paradoz3855 You better hope they keep complaining, because when they go silent, the game goes bankrupt. Just ask Disney how ignoring the fans works for them. Complaining players are still players who are funding this campaign, and hoping for a better future. Look, the game is not in a good state and morale is really low, especially with these changes that are out of the blue and most people do not want (at least on forum, discord, orgs, and spectrum) and we really need a win, not taking a fan favorite and making it useless.
@@Paradoz3855 lol. I’ve talked to enough of you white-knights that I know most of you live in your own imagination rather than the current reality when it comes to this game. Also, this doesn’t affect me; I don’t do much combat. I haven’t enjoyed the game in a long while and I’m just watching it burn while white-knights are crying there are complaints about implemented features.
Corsair's response is lame BS. Looks like they are pushing out solo players, guess that is where the money is :( . I tried the Tech test hanger, but it would not spawn my ships. CIG overtime: my read is they will get the time back later. Here in the US, that stuff happens with no compensation.
@@vanda1l12because they straight up said before that the pilot would have access to all those guns. And the constellation has almost the same pilot dps with double the health.
@@Keiser-h4z It was sold as the way it was, having the guns setup like they are, not *ERGMERGerd MuLTiCrEw" stop gate keeping solo players with bullshit responses
@@wolf986 It was never sold as a solo ship. We've known multicrew was coming since the start of the fucking crowdfunding campaign. And there will be AI crew at some point. Stop crying that you won't be able to be a top tier combat ship alone in your Exploration ship.
I am all for multicrew ships needing multiple crew to function properly, but what they did with the corsair is not realistic or fun gameplay, if they wanted to nerf it they could have lowered the size of the guns, co pilots shouldn't use fixed weapons
I want to reject the premise though - why does a multicrew ship need multiple people to _function_ properly? Does scaling up the autonomous systems of a fighter just make them no longer autonomous for some reason? Do the shields and power plants just not work the same by making them bigger? If they do, what gameplay experience is being facilitated by _requiring_ that engagement? Questions like these need to be answered, and if the answers are "Because We Said So," or "Because Balance," those are deeply unsatisfying and functions as a Quitting moment for many players. It strikes many players as the developers themselves complaining that the players aren't playing the game the way the developers want instead of, I don't know, just having fun? I suppose it should be true that you should have multiple people on a multicrew ship to get the most out of it, but multiple players should not be required to start up and fly around even an Idris. One person should absolutely be able to pull out an Idris, power it up, and fly it around and pew pew with the railgun/beam laser. Engineering should serve the purpose of adapting to changing situations and enhancing the ship's performance, not act as a barrier to flying the ship in the first place. Engineering should not be a constant management of healing components and juggling around power settings because the larger power plants somehow magically don't have enough power to run everything when the smaller power plants do on small ships. Engineering should be a management of additional power and coolant flow in order to make systems perform _better_ than they would be were they unmanaged and left in their default state.
Not realistic for a futuristic space game? Hmm, interesting take. Don't like it, don't use it or don't play the game. The nerf is much needed. No reason the corsair should be dominating like it is for a solo ship.
@@tylerbudahl5727bruh the Corsair ain’t domainating no one. Especially a half way decent fighter. It’s just a great ship to use overall. Just like the Connie but we don’t see cig forcing multicrew gameplay into that ship. Let alone, the other large ships like the Hercules series or the cats.
@@KiithnarasAshaa"Engineering shouldn't be..." So, aside the pilot all other crew only should sit bored and watch the pilot to play the game, or use their own ship. Well, that is what CIG wants to erase.
@@Haegemon And yet, the solution thus far has been the Antares and these changes to the Corsair, where players are expected to sit in a seat and do nothing until it is time to push a button. Engineering is falling into a similar situation, with high expected demand for players to run around and poke components with healing beams and juggling around power settings in order to get the same performance out of a large ship compared to single-seater fighters. I'm with you in giving multicrew ships meaningful gameplay, but there's a gulf of difference between incentive-driven gameplay - encouraging players to engage in gameloops for rewards or advantages - and barrier-driven gameplay. Everything about Master Modes, Engineering, and the roles of Multicrew gameplay all seem to center around Barrier-driven gameplay.
Who uses the remote turret on the top of the Corsair? If the forward guns are given to the co-pilot, is that crew slot doing both? And scanning? And Engineering? There are 4 crew max; pilot, 2 gunners, and the co-pilot. Gunners do other jobs when not in combat (Engineer), and the pilot/co-pilot can trade off scanning (hopefully), but 4 people and 5 combat positions will be an issue at some point. P.S. If they take the top turret guns out, and replace them with a tractor beam, it might work. With the cost being the 360 degree defense.
I used to work 7 days a week for a few months in the run-up to tax year-end, so I feel for the devs. There are many industries where it's expected, but that doesn't make it any easier to work though. I hope it doesn't last too long and that they don't get burned out over it.
Restaurant, retail, hospitality, agriculture, forest fire fighters, event services and many other professions work 7 days a wee depending on the time of the year or whatever. It isn't great having to work 7 days a week, I've done it plenty of time, but it isn't unusual for software development to occasionally to do it. the email didn't show a bunch of people complaining just that they need some extra work and will be compensated later.
Im sorry, as a game developer myself the "some level of crunch" thing is completely unacceptable, you thinking that its okay makes me loose most of my respect for you.. What happened at CIG is apparently due to Chris Roberts being pissed about the SQ42 demo "not being up to his standards", leading to the entire company being forced to crunch. The overtime they are being forced to do is, considering it is unpaid, and the "time off in lieu" only being usable after the project finishes, and payrises having been frozen for over a year, is outrageous. It hints at some insane mismanagment going on at CIG, which does not bode well for the PU or SQ42.
Oh? and how do you know that? How exactly do you know what data they are or are not looking at? sounds like a blind assumption based on ignorance to me.
If the corsair would be nerfed i would say just moving its size 5s to size 4s to lower its overall DPS, having a separate dedicated button pusher for its lower 2 size 5s is ridiculous.
As a social experiment, on some channel I spoke against nerfing the Corsair and on some channels I spoke for it. No matter what there was someone ready to be hostile with me.
As an animator who has crunched hard on feature films, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the crunch that devs are under ahead of Citizen Con. If CIG is mandating 7 day work weeks, it is likely that staff have already been crunching for weeks if not months ahead of time. I get that Citizen Con is a super important event for the company, but crunching more than 70 hours a week, for multiple weeks/months does real mental and physical damage to devs. It takes a long time to recover from that level of stress.
@@karabak8103 Postal employee here, 18 years, used to work 60 hour weeks as standard, 13 days on and alternating sundays off with another employee. Crunch time for the USPS is December 1 to December 25, managers try to work us past 60 hours a week, and our "past 10 hours in a day" premium (x2 pay for 11th and 12th hour) is suspended during December, it's just normal time and a half overtime. I'm not complaining, but CIG issuing a crunch-time warning and people acting like they are being beaten with reeds is a little absurd to me. It's not like they are at EA doing crunch, it's CIG. Just my opinion.
When they advertised the corsair they intentionally mentioned the forward guns were all usable by the pilot. That was one of it's main selling features. It's meant to be highly combat capable, it misses other features that other Explorer ships have so this is how it compensates for that. I think this is a mistake.
It's great to hear that meshing is in a better state. I don't have a Corsair, but I don't think reducing the firepower fractionally for the pilot is the end of the world.
A 7 day work week for crunch is pretty bad, but unfortunately it's on par for the games industry. At least CIG appears to be treating them a little better than other companies with free food and stuff. But yeah, crunch is one of the reasons I never got into the games industry because no company seems to be safe from it, and some apparently only accept people that say upfront that they are willing to pull ridiculous hours for long periods of time.
Looks like its time to melt the Corsair then it flies like a brick and what makes it worth having is that everything dies that's in front of it. It is about time the CIG notice that more players play solo than in a group. I got the Corsair after testing it in the IAE it cam into the game.
The reason you are allowed to meld is because they know people will keep changing ships as soon as they fix them into the concept they figured for them. The same reason they created ships with a Max Crew of 1 and 2.
If you look at the Corsair model the lower two front guns are actually mounted on something that looks like some sort of rail mount. If they switch those guns over to the co-pilot and give them a roughly 45° firing arc I really wouldn't mind too much - in the short term. The problem is that the Corsair already can only support a crew of 4 and the co-pilot already controls the remote turret while another two are needed for the side turrets. Once engineering is introduced who's gonna act as the chief engineer? It probably isn't the co-pilot if you want him to manage power distribution, the remote turret AND two of the main guns. So pretty much as soon as the Corsair takes any kind of damage (and it's not meant to be well-armoured so it'll take system damage fast) you'll probably lose your two manned turrets to damage control / engineering at which point your co-pilot pretty much HAS to live in the remote controlled turret and won't have time for the main guns. I'm not sure CIG has truly thought this through. If they just keep it as is the Corsair will eventually balance itself among its competitors once working armour is introduced because at that point its shields will pretty much be the only thing thing standing between the crew and all the things that wanna squish them unlike with ships like the Redeemer or even the Conny. It'll have a great deal of firepower but only in the first few minutes or even seconds of an engagement. Once the hull itself is getting hit half the crew will be busy running around with duct tape and good will. Add to that that pretty much all of its vital systems are clustered around one central point and you'll find that the Corsair, in future, could end up being very easily disabled once the shields are down. Why nerf it now when it's likely they'll have to change it again in the future?
The article was interesting for several things it didn't focus on. It was probably the most significant indicator that CIG intend for SQ42 to release soon. It did seem that the information was obtained from disgruntled former employees - which CIG is bound to have solely based on how big they are. It was a little odd that it implied the conditions were onerous when they are probably not unusually in the slightest for a lot of deadline driven work.
I understand the rage around the Corsair changes, but as a Corsair owner it’s always been understood ships will get balanced. It’s still a good ship for multiple game loops. I think people might be overlooking how functional it still is even with some weapons remapped.
Im glad they are reverting the boost back to what it currently is. I'm also happy to hear that CIG is starting to make larger ships require more crew and cannot just be flown by one pilot.
I work in VFX and can tell you mandatory OT is a regular thing, the only issue I have is the "time in lieu" part, OT should be paid out in full to all employees working OT.
The comment about the corsair accounting for a lot more kills than other ships I feel like doesn't paint the full picture. As someone who fly's it, I bought it in game because of the guns but also the price. I think it's about 6 million AUEC, 2 million cheaper than the cheapest connie and about half the price of the 400i. The amount of pilot controlled weapons is a bit insane but this change would bring the pilot damage below that of a connie which has better survivability and manoeuvrability. Maybe changing the smaller wing mounted weapons to the co-pilot seat would have kept some more balance and options in that range of combat ships.
The comment about the kills IS an incomplete picture because it was Yogi's response to a player's DM. So he was brief and didn't specify. The data is most likely a complex calculation of ship price, number of people that own the ship and use it to fight, total amount of kills, total amount of deaths to weapons, ship role, time played of the owners.... so many things might be taken into account. It's an incomplete feature. They are giving the copilot 2 of the guns both because the Corsair is OP for its price and because the copilot has literally nothing to do at all. They stated in the complete feature you, as the pilot, will have control of all forward facing, non turret guns and will be able to pass control of any of the guns to the copilot. People are literally crying over a change to a ship that performs better than average at combat when it's an exploration ship, and when the weapon systems feature isn't finished. Get over it. And you bought it with ingame money wtf...
so maybe a solution to the problem like most things are an economy change. Make the Corsair the same price as the MSR they should be competitors anyways. Boom you don't have anyone bit the upper mid game guys having it. nobody will hand out 10 mil like they will 1. Most of our balance issues are the result of a poor economy design. The economy as a whole needs a rework. Recycled garbage shouldn't be making more than actively trading gold. 5uec gas tanks helps break this. The ship prices are all over the place even for competitor models. Combat armor is cheaper than pressure suits. Weapons are waaaay to cheap for the value in game. The rpair costs are nowhere near relaitve ie you can break wings off land and its only a 3k repair. Landing pad refuels have no elevated price to drag you back to your homeworld. They need to start getting experts in finance, mining, salvage, both combat pilots and transport, etc. It starting to show that they spaghetti monstered the wall.
I think if they base weapon velocity on power they are provided, it will fix 90% of the problems with PVP (Particularly the small zippy ship meta). Imagine you are in a reclaimer are being hassled by a fury shooting at you from max range, near impossible to down it with current weapons, but if you could divert high amounts of power to your weapons and the weapon's effective range became significantly longer, you could fight back and deal with the smaller target.
I could imagine they are trying to make sure as much as possible from last CitizenCon is in before this one as it really dampens the mood if every new thing will be discussed with "but obviously after last years announcements finish"
Hard to say with big events like this, they take a lot of coordination, for example I'm pretty sure quite a few of the community teams will be working 7 days a week.
No listen to what was said, Yogi posted a few days ago that he didn't even know that they slowed boost down and that it was supposed to be done at a later date and now we see he reiterated that it is still the plan to slow boost once again at a later date.
@@rooster1012 yeah, that’s what a lot of people do when they make a mistake and don’t want to look like they did it on purpose. They essentially throw someone else under the bus.
i think the changes made to multi-crew ships is a good idea, but CIG have not taken into account players who do not have a crew to play with, i feel the changes would have been less problematic if AI CREW was available to hire or the ability to slave guns should have been implimented before these changes.
I don’t care what Yogi says, CIG sold the Corsair with pilot full control of guns. If CIG wants to now change these ships and call it balancing, then we should get partial or full REFUND. This new Corsair not what we paid for.
I am actually grateful for their quick response and revert regarding a change, that was out of place. I am super exited for CitCon and cross my fingers we get that SQ42 release date!
If the gun split on the corsair is for the front lower pair to be on its own turret control, it makes sense. The design even makes the nose look like it has a heavy front co pulot turret. Always struck me as odd that the pilot got a giant wall of guns under his control.
I was under the impression that this was always the scheduling at the end of the year. Hence why they take a good portion of January off to recuperate. 🇺🇦🇭🇹🇵🇸
If the Corsair needs tweaking, it's got six S2s, two S4s, and four S5s. Just give the pilot all the S2s, the S4s on the remote turret, and a pair of the S5s on each manned turret. The Corsair won't be quite so heavy a hitter when solo, but will be an absolute beast the more crew you get in it.
Former CIG, current IT here. Crunch time/working weekends happens all over these industries, it’s common. It indicates less than perfect management, not bad management. When I worked at CIG, both my supervisors and the company as a whole treated me very well. This article is a cheap fluffy hit piece, nothing more.
It would be nice if the fully crewed ships would have all turrets manned. Positions where you have to choose make no sense in ships where you have additional crew available.
That Corsair change is pretty rough, but I'm keeping my feelings in check. With full Omnisky loadout, if the pilot still retains it's two s4 wing guns, it's not that bad. Pre-nerf: 2,282 DPS Post-nerf: 1,922 DPS We're only losing 360 DPS and the ability to quad-hit alpha damage like a truck. However, if they're going to enforce multicrew on the Corsair, the bottom two nose guns should probably get their own capacitor or honestly I'd rather run the nose alone anyway and put someone on the remote/side turrets instead. I will miss putting suckerpunches on my s4 wings, but I am willing to accept some kind of nerf.
Every year my work, and industrial factory, does an annual outage. We are "highly encouraged" to work extra days. It happens every October. The extra days seem fine from my point of view.
I keep hearing people float the idea that the power triangle should be used to control the speed of ships. With the resource network using power for thrusters, weapons, etc., that seems close to that? I think they’ll add in a more prevalent heat system as well, beyond just weapons overheating, such as your engine?
Sounds like a typical "all hands on deck" kinda scenario. Mandating overtime is not uncommon. And it sounds like they're still adhereing to reasonable "demands" ensuring their employees are working hard, but also aware of their health and work load. It's good to seem a leaning toward larger ships being disadvantaged if they're not properly crewed. The way it should be for those types of gameplay scenarios. This way the larger ships aren't necessarily the meta ship just because they're bigger/better than smaller ones. Question for CIG/Citcon: What plans are there if any for accessibility options available in game? Do you have any dedicated players that are able to provide feedback, or do you have a specific team that will be (or is) working on ideas/options?
CiG has been very disappointing over this past year. Master modes is stupid regardless of whether they revert back or not. The bugs are horrendously numerous. They keep adding half assed features that barely work and never address the constant bugs that already exist. This game keeps adding ships to fund its development. When is the time to start getting this game ready for release? More and more players are bailing on this game because CiG doesn't listen to its players. Bugs go un-fixed so what's the point of posting them? Many of us feel this game has gone backwards not forwards.
I'm still not understanding the point of the Corsair nerf. The copilot already has a weapon that they have to use, so they're forcing them to choose what weapons they have to use at the moment? A more reasonable nerf might be removing the 2 S4 guns if they want to reduce the firepower, but those four cannons should always be for the pilot.
I would like to have the option to assign control of certain weapons/functions to crew members but be able to control them from the pilot's seat when needed.
Asking people to relocate for work in VFX/Gaming works for Juniors since they usually don't have a house and a family. So requiring it limits your recruiting pool. The highly talented people in these industry will not bother unless they already live there, or are being compensated fairly plus paid housing. Studios that are find with remote work will have much more senior talent applying, but these companies don't want to miss out on the tax credits. So this tells me that CiG is limiting their talent pool.
If "crunch" was unreasonable, the affected employees would say "No. I'm not able or comfortable with those hours, so I will not work them." If termination or replacement is a factor for them, I ask the question: why would a person work for an employer that refuses to provide decent treatment when the person has marketable skills?
For weapons, I think the ship owner should be able to assign them to seats as desired. So if they are flying solo they can retain control of any forward facing weapons. Its more reasonable that turrets don't fall under pilot control, with perhaps the exception of any that face forward. Perhaps putting any that do in a gimble mode and allowing them to be assigned to the pilot seat. I do understand that game balance is a thing and that this might be why they're trying to spread the guns among multiple seats in multicrew ships. It seems to me though, one person trying to handle more guns is still going to be less effective than a fully crewed ship.
The Corsair should have a chin turret if it's not slaved to the pirate. Because all the crew member does is press the button when the pilot has got the target in sight. So give it a greater radius, even if you have to reduce to size 4 to make that happen.
They should give the pilot the choice of shifting control of guns to other stations or maintaining control at their station. Fighters these days not only have the capability for the pilot to control the vast arsenal they have aboard their own plane but also to control the weapons of multiple planes nearby. Give us the choice to multi crew how we want.
Roll on CitCon, I will be buying lots of food and munch beforehand, and be sitting in me pants watching the stream from start to finish on my second monitor, whilst playing Star Citizen 😁
why would they release the Zeus explorer variant when we have nothing to explore? Especially since there is a bounty hunter variant and bounty hunting gameplay is available now? Seems like an oversight..
7 day workweeks do suck, I've done it before. Had to work 20 hour days and only 4 hours to sleep, eat, or shower. Going home was optional. As long as they limit their hours during those days, it sucks but is doable.
Regarding the proposed changes to the Corsair, my feeling is that CIG should put off the “second seat” weapons changes until they institute AI crew and blades. The weapons have been pilot controlled since its release, and shouldn’t be changed until there is an alternative. What CIG does in concert with its employee representatives is their business. One time in the 1970s, I worked for a major aircraft manufacturing company on a major Government contract to modify military aircraft. From the first week of July, to the first week in September, we worked twelve hours a day Monday through Friday and eight hours a day on Saturday and Sunday. The company willing paid fines to the state so they didn’t have to hire more employees only to lay them off when the contract was completed.
I agree with some of the other commenters here forcing multi-crew by taking guns that were already controlled by the pilot away is not how I would like to see it. There should be better roles for crew and I'm really hoping engineering and the fire mechanics make it more valuable to have crew other than taking DPS away from the pilot
I actually like that they are trying to push and asking the team to work extra to get things ready for citizencon. With as long as some of these updates have taken and the overall length of development it is nice to see them making attempts to get things ready for citizencon.
It makes very little sence to me to split the forward facing guns between the pilot and co-pilot, especially when the co-pilot has access to the remote turret. In my option it would be better to just size the guns down by one, and develop something more useful now the ships dont have inventory, like make the suit lockers work.
A couple of 7-day work weeks before a major event should be expected no matter where you are. Sure it is not fun but employees can pretty much prepare for that crunch time all year.
I work in the air line industry and we have crunch every once in a while to push things out. Not nearly 7 days in a row, its usually just a few REALLY long days. I have had 3 15+ hour days in a row before but then we are given days off after and usually the company buys us lunch. I also have a pretty awesome salary where i can pretty much buy whatever i want when i want so these crunches are not so bad in the grand scheme of things. especially since the rest of the job has a pretty good work/life balance. Im not sure how things are in the game industry but crunch is a normal thing. As long as they are paid pretty decently and have decent work/life balance for the rest of the year outside of the citizencon craziness then all is well im my mind.
The changes for the Corsair make no sense, why would forward facing fixed weapons be controlled by a seat that needs to operate the remote turret? That seems ridiculous.
I don't have a problem with the Corsair change. I think it makes sense that you would have to refit (install AI blades or whatever) a multicrew ship if you want to fly it solo. I've got a corsair that I intend to use solo in the future.
Asking employees that support citizen con to work a few weekends isn't that big of an ask. Especially if they are being given the option of taking the time off at a later date of their choosing.
if they turned the bottom guns into a twin s5 manned turret that’d be at least a little more usable and a better compromise than just having it essentially be a fixed forward turret
If multicrew ships are dis-incentivised for solo players, there should be a commensurate bump in earnings for 'solo' missions. Otherwise, as other people have said, running a multicrew ship is where rhe money is, and solo players are 'left out' to some extent.
My first cc, but wouldn't cig work longer hours every year before they invite the public to their house for a days long party? Wouldn't every business do this? Wouldn't you if you were having the neighborhood over for a thing?
Star Citizen - CIG Reverts Boost Changes - Crunch Time Ahead Of CitizenCon
Get NORDVPN Discount | nordvpn.com/boredgamer
Tobii Eye Tracker 5 | tobii.gg/boredgamer
Insider Gaming 7 Day CIG Work Week Video | ruclips.net/video/nNSncpohm2U/видео.html
Become a Channel Member | ruclips.net/user/BoredGamerUKjoin
Get a Star Citizen Account & Bonus | boredgamer.co.uk/enlist
Try Incogni 60% Off - Take Control Of Your Privacy | www.boredgamer.co.uk/incogni
Support On Patreon | www.patreon.com/BoredGamer
Get GameGlass | www.boredgamer.co.uk/gameglass
Donate To The Channel | www.boredgamer.co.uk/donate
Direct Paypal Donations | paypal.me/boredgamer
Discord | discord.gg/boredgamer
Twitch | www.twitch.tv/boredgameruk
Twitter / X | twitter.com/BoredGamerUK
Reddit | www.reddit.com/r/BoredGamer/
Podcast | soundcloud.com/boredgameruk
Checkout Hasgaha's Screenshots | www.hasgaha.com/gaming-screenshots/
LATEST STAR CITIZEN PATCH ALPHA 3.24.2 EVOCATI
I've reached out about claiming my ship but haven't heard back.
change is inevitable I know that but for the push to multi crew, I think focusing on blades and AI crew would be more important to come out with first before poorly changing ships function. The Corsair would have been better off lowering gun size and giving it a bit more speed. giving the copilot control of two guns means they can't use remote turret. so two guns even fully crewed won't work. this does not make sense logically especially to lower dps for solo player. Id wish they would have thought more about this before doing this two a ship. if there was a third seat in corsair sure I could see that. but there is not. so ya know I heavily disagree with this move. Yogis excuse does not equate. and if thats the first "stab" it was not thought through well at all.
Squadron NORDY two lmao 😂
I will never engage in multicrew unless they introduce AI NPCs crew. Think I saw a survey showing 35% thinks like me.@@Tiggerlooker
I GET wanting to make the ships more multicrew, but the Corsair already has its remote turrent that you need the co pilot to even use as it is. I just feel this is a weird change, hell I would prefer they reduce the size of the weapons or something if they feel it needs a nerf rather than taking the guns away from my pilot control. The ship already flys like a brick and isnt as tough as some equivalent's. Its weapons loadout is what set it apart from say the Connie.
Also this idea is so asinine, no plane EVER had fixed forward facing guns operated by anyone but a pilot. WHY would you need someone to press a button.
no one outside of whoever made this decision in CIG gets it. Literally any other choice is better than this idiocy.
To put it simply yogi is audio engineer/programmer by background. He has no background in data analytics, which he uses as the pretext for his changes. The distribution of the corsair's use is well outside of even a Pareto distribution and even if it were that's always the most statistically natural distribution of any set of preferences when you have proper balance in a game.
I DON’T get making more ships multicrew. At all. What percent of people at any given time actually play with a crew? Multicrew sounds neat, but it’s a pipe dream. That’s not how people actually play, and this game has way too much friction and time-sink for it to be a reality.
@@molboard98 I think the largest contributing factor to people not playing multicrew (lest its aboard a reclaimer) is the simple fact that the mission payout scheme's are only conducive to solo play. We're starting to see glimpses of reasons to not just take multiple ships but that's going to be pointless for as long as credits are split in half for each person you bring along.
I don't understand why its so hard for CIG to realize that doubling the grind for everyone if playing with so much as 1 additonal person would be conducive to co-op play.
As a primarily solo pilot who has put thousands into this game, I don't like them forcing multi crew gameplay without NPC's in game yet.
I think corsair kills isn't a good metric for saying it is over powered. It could just be popular. I think they could just downgrade the guns if it were OP rather then making this cumbersome change.
I think the ship is just extremely popular. I see them everywhere now. I've had one a long time now. It removes the point of the turret the co pilot already has access to.
Isn't the joke of drake ships that they're all used by pirates too??
I think the Corsair and Redeemer were overpowered but the nerf was poorly implemented. Finally, the best part is, it doesn't matter what I think.
The entire selling point of the Corsair is that it was op with guns but you put your life at risk with its weak armor and shields. This kills the idea behind the ship as far as I understand it
@@Bubblegum_Ronin Redeemer hasn’t been overpowered in a long time.
You have no idea how they calculate kills. It's very unlikely that they're just looking at total kills by a Corsair, they understand more about statistics than you seem to. They're referring to Corsair total kills by Corsair total users, and probably involving how the ship is being used in some way as to exclude people that use the Corsair as a transport to do bunkers or to do cargo.
So basically the thing with the Corsair is whoever is in the co-pilot seat will just be clicking their fire button whenever the pilot has an enemy ship in their sights and is also firing their guns? So your job is to essentially sit their and periodically click one button. Im all for multi-crewing ships but god does that sound boring lol
Same with the Antares and the QED. Will be the same with the Polaris and the torpedoes.
@@senn4237 Depending on how the do Torpedoes, but the their should be someone manning the radar changes the different modes to try and get through the counter measures, and the revers side for an EW operator, that would be a good game play.
Sounds like its a great choice especially for when engineering and life support systems are implemented.
And scanning, missiles, running to put out fires, maybe some engineering, we don't know yet he might be directing NPCs, changing out computer blades and maybe helping out with medical.
Yeah, makes no sense to give control for guns you can't aim. If it were a chin turret, then it'd make slightly more sense.
Ya. The corsair change is absolutely dumb. Seems like nobody thought this through at all. " Wait. people are having too much fun with it. Make the copilot press a button!" Did they forget how they marketed to e corsair in the first place?
It’s not a heavy fighter my guy
so dumb and means i will not buy anything else with new money from now on since what i buy i wont be able keep what buy due to balancing or is it to get use buy something else
Ares Ion owners; First Time?
It's not heavy fighter, but it's scammed
@@stevechil5226 never said it was.... It was however marketed a certain way. Trere were better ways to balance this out. Going down a gun size for instance.
I dont even own a Corsair, but the change is a load of bull.
If they're worried that HHs are dying too fast, how about buffing the HHs instead of nerfing the Corsair?
Whats HH?
Hammer Head @@DomBogey94
@@DomBogey94 Aegis Hammerhead, basically the closest thing the game has to a combat capital ship until the Polaris comes out.
The Corsair is OP lol. It just is.
how exactly are they nerfing it? just pilot weapons or what?
Corsair nerf doesn't make sense and feels very manipulative. Take an old ship that's still a favorite and nerf it....sounds like a recipe to sell a new ship. Hate this, finally got enough real world capital to buy the corsair and 1 month later they nerf it. Seems to really be the way it goes. Leave it alone, or take the wing weapons. Its then just the same as the connie.
Also revert the Corsair main gun changes while you are at it.
Not if the Redeemer is staying nerfed.
The Corsair and redeemer changes (nerfs) weren’t meant to balance the game. It was meant to encourage players to buy the new upcoming ships that are releasing this month and in IAE. CIG has been doing this for more than a year now. I’m surprised people are still making it out to be a bad balancing system. Seeing how everyone is reacting, I’d confidently say they accomplished their mission. Simple, but seemingly effective execution.
The corsair already flies like a damn brick, it really just feels like there doing this to sell the new ships because it makes no sense to have FORWARD FACING FIXED GUNS to be controlled by a copilot, especially when he cant even aim them and he already has control over the remote gun turret, and the excuse they used that it has to many kills is stupid, so your going to nurf every popular ship just because they have to many kills? Anyone with even a bit of flying skills would absolutely take out the corsair just by staying away from the front of it especially if there is only 1 person on the ship. Again it just looks like they did it to sell the newer ships.
the corsair changes are beyond bizarre. If they want more multi crew gameplay, buff the existing turrets or give the corsair a chin turret. If they are testing for a chin turret, what is gained from the current testing ? if they want to lower pilot damage without creating a "dedicated button pusher" job, remove the wing guns or lower the gun size. so many choices that can "nerf" the corsair without creating a role that no one in their right mind would ever want to play.
I read the brochure of the Corsair, this is why i bought it and now they changed, this is so bad i'll never trust those brochure
Years ago I saw a mini-doc about the development of one of the halo games. It seemed like the crunch at Bungie was 18-36 hour days, 7 days a week, for a month or more.
The change to the Corsair is really bad. That takes all the fun out of this ship for me. Very sad times.
Yes, melt time
I just got the corsair the day before this change was known, it has been my favorite ship for a while because of the massive firepower and awesone look/design. Now im considering melting it already. But i have no clue what ship i want to replace it...
I think the reduction in pilot weapon sizes would be fine if they made the handling better and the turrets more effective. But they won't do that, because they fundamentally misunderstand their own game and how actual players fly.
exactly this. as a corsair enjoyer, i dont care how "overpowered" or underpowered my ship is. But i do care about the fun. And the 4 guns right in my view going "BRRRRT" is hella fun. So they remove part of the fun for the pilot, and create a role that is literally anti-fun ? What.
@@zrgst you should be able to refund your purchase within 30 days of the purchasing date if you bought it for cash
Yogi attempting to make SC play like SQ42 is like watching a car crash in slow motion, fasten your seatbelts
They could’ve just downgraded the weapons. The Corsair co pilot already had the ability to use the remote turret. Them making that choice of changing the amount of guns being used isn’t the problem. They can easily lower the size of guns and that can still keep the ship in a position where the pilot would have to have better skill and effort into getting the kills. They made a very bad decision now they will definitely see a drop in sells for the Corsair. Plus they’re adding engineering in 4.0 that alone will be a massive nerf to all ships.
I have not played SC enough to like or hate the new master modes but when I start playing more the re-balances will be something I will have to adjust to.
I am with you, downgrade the size or maybe in order to use all the current guns making there be a power usage toll could be interesting.
If I understand it right, corsair don't need nerf. It'll naturally get nerfed when armor goes online since in lore drake ships have less or no armor at all. So it'll end up as a glass cannon.
@@ronelicabandi9706 It already is a glass cannon. The Corsair has 91k total HP, but the Constellation has 161k, both have 4x S5 guns, with the 2x S4 guns, that fall off the Corsair wings if you look at them too long, being the only difference in firepower.
@@recoandmidnight1555 nah, you don’t see the potential of fun the copilot would have firing FIXED weapons? LOL
I like the idea of OPTIONAL weapon controls splitting between players. Which that's what it should be, OPTIONAL. And how the hell can you base it on "amounts of kills". That only tells us that it's a popular ship. What about the Constellation? You can fire all those guns and if you are a decent pilot, the Connie will beat the Corsair in a dogfight 7 or 8 times out of 10. I mean, we're talking close to 700 years in the future... there is NO reason to be mimicking today's technology. In the future, I highly doubt... let me rephrase that; I KNOW that we won't need a co-pilot to fire a group of guns that are fixed on the SAME forward position. Sh!t, we don't need it NOW. Our 5th-Gen fighter jets only need one person to operate everything. Yes, the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lighting are fighter jets but they have a TON of features and a lot of firepower which can all be operated by ONE person. The Corsair is NOT big by any means and again, all the guns are fixed in a forward facing position (except for the turrets which I have my issues with their effectiveness already). I get the multi-crew gameplay mechanics. I like to play with people here and there. But there are MANY other things we can implement for that. It just comes down to content. The answer is NOT making something completely unrealistic just because someone got lazy with balancing. But I agree that we need more multi-crew gameplay but save that for the really big ships and stop messing with our favorite multi-role ships that we like to run solo. I play the vast majority of my time solo and I want to be able to enjoy a wide variety of ships by myself. And I know for a FACT that most people fly solo most of the time so if I'm flying my Corsair and I don't have a chance to take out an effing Arrow because my ship is from the 1900s and can only fire a couple guns when I'm doing some solo hauling. I mean, what's the point of the space in the rear of the Corsair? It's too small to be splitting the cost of a load of goods with 2 or 3 people unless you're running Vice or Eggs or something. But who wants to ONLY do that? But, we will see what ahppens. Things are going to change... and change again... then again and AGAAAAIIIIIIIIN... so we have to embrace the suck at times and learn to LOVE IT LONG TIME!!!
the change to the corsair is stupid giving 2 guns to a co pilot who has a turret rather than moving the main guns a size down and turrets up 1 to spread out the firepower
I say give it 6xs4 or just remove the two s4 wing guns leaving 4xs5 and push the turrets up to s3
No, it’s balanced and CIG makes the best changes and thinking long term. At least that’s what you’ll see the white-knights say. lmao
@@RakugothDajjal there are multiple ways they could have done it that don't effect anyone's gameplay in a huge way, but they're going to crowbar multicrew in anyway they can i just feel sorry for people who have used the corsair, loved it then bought it even i was considering dumping another hundred or so to upgrade from my cutty till this happened
Stupid app... Didn't mean to post that as a reply.
Ya that what i was thinking.. but maybe ther eplan is to keep DPS the same by turning the lower 2 Gun in to a Bottom Turret that can move on it onw, making the Corsair in to a Max DPS with 3 crew members v 2 crew
Crunch sucks. I remember working retail management and I had to work 65 hour a week for 6 to 8 weeks straight for the holidays. Got nothing in return, as I was a salary employee. I feel for CIG but 2 weeks doesn't sound so bad. Also didn't Red Dead go through some hellish crunch which I believe 10 weeks, everyday had to be in the office and required stay overnights. Legit people where sleeping at their desk. Terrible.
The Ion now the Corsair, this might be my last Citizen Con small things maybe, but small things add up. That's no way to treat people that made you rich and helped build your dream.
Our thoughts on this (for which you asked): what sold us at the beginning of SC was Chris's stated vision of real world physics in game especially for ships and battle. We gave him a lot of our money, loyalty, and patience to allow him to deliver and for a time, we were rewarded with his vision being realized. Then we got MM. Now we're told the their latest change to speed, which they removed, was just a foretaste of things to come? We were lied to, again, by a company we gave our loyalty. CIG continues to show us what low regard (if not contempt) they have for their supporters. We are also beginning to realize that, instead of being a unique and realistic space game, that CIG is going to deliver a glorified version of a cross between EVE Online and Mario Karts 64; yet we all we get blithely from you is company excuses without the actual reasoning behind it...
Since cig is going to force multi crew I’m going to stop flying ships like the Corsair and every other ship
If this is the case, they need to remove the Conni Andro as a starter pack. Starter packs should only be acceptably soloable ships... that might even scratch the Freelancer when I think about what CIG is aiming for.
@@RavingNut They just need to sell an "early access" ticket, and keep selling skins and stuff, but STOP SELLING SHIPS. Not only are they are driving away a massive audience of people by doing that, they keep putting massive amounts of development hours into ships that dont actually have any use in the game yet.
@@mhmm4840You're clearly out of the loop... 😂
This was exactly the plan from the beginning, you can't fly massive fucking ships and operate them just yourself. That would be stupid.
Ever since Master modes came into gameplay I haven't done any pvp
White-knights will reply saying it’s balanced now, stop jousting, and you can’t just tricord to runaway. Oh and the inevitable “stop crying” comment.
@@XeroJin84yeah yall are a bunch of cry babies. I just hear a bunch of people with skill issues complaining
@@Paradoz3855 You better hope they keep complaining, because when they go silent, the game goes bankrupt. Just ask Disney how ignoring the fans works for them. Complaining players are still players who are funding this campaign, and hoping for a better future. Look, the game is not in a good state and morale is really low, especially with these changes that are out of the blue and most people do not want (at least on forum, discord, orgs, and spectrum) and we really need a win, not taking a fan favorite and making it useless.
@@Paradoz3855 MM has killed any interest I had in PvP. Cry more, lemming.
@@Paradoz3855 lol. I’ve talked to enough of you white-knights that I know most of you live in your own imagination rather than the current reality when it comes to this game. Also, this doesn’t affect me; I don’t do much combat. I haven’t enjoyed the game in a long while and I’m just watching it burn while white-knights are crying there are complaints about implemented features.
Still a $250 “exploration ship” that outguns the Redeemer a $350 gunship. None of the ship/gameplay team’s decisions make any sense.
Corsair's response is lame BS. Looks like they are pushing out solo players, guess that is where the money is :( . I tried the Tech test hanger, but it would not spawn my ships. CIG overtime: my read is they will get the time back later. Here in the US, that stuff happens with no compensation.
Don't buy a 4 man multi crew ship if you intend to play solo. I honestly don't know HOW you are surprised by this.
@@vanda1l12because they straight up said before that the pilot would have access to all those guns. And the constellation has almost the same pilot dps with double the health.
If you play solo you DON'T NEED a ship like the corsair.
@@Keiser-h4z It was sold as the way it was, having the guns setup like they are, not *ERGMERGerd MuLTiCrEw" stop gate keeping solo players with bullshit responses
@@wolf986 It was never sold as a solo ship. We've known multicrew was coming since the start of the fucking crowdfunding campaign. And there will be AI crew at some point. Stop crying that you won't be able to be a top tier combat ship alone in your Exploration ship.
I am all for multicrew ships needing multiple crew to function properly, but what they did with the corsair is not realistic or fun gameplay, if they wanted to nerf it they could have lowered the size of the guns, co pilots shouldn't use fixed weapons
I want to reject the premise though - why does a multicrew ship need multiple people to _function_ properly? Does scaling up the autonomous systems of a fighter just make them no longer autonomous for some reason? Do the shields and power plants just not work the same by making them bigger? If they do, what gameplay experience is being facilitated by _requiring_ that engagement? Questions like these need to be answered, and if the answers are "Because We Said So," or "Because Balance," those are deeply unsatisfying and functions as a Quitting moment for many players. It strikes many players as the developers themselves complaining that the players aren't playing the game the way the developers want instead of, I don't know, just having fun?
I suppose it should be true that you should have multiple people on a multicrew ship to get the most out of it, but multiple players should not be required to start up and fly around even an Idris. One person should absolutely be able to pull out an Idris, power it up, and fly it around and pew pew with the railgun/beam laser. Engineering should serve the purpose of adapting to changing situations and enhancing the ship's performance, not act as a barrier to flying the ship in the first place.
Engineering should not be a constant management of healing components and juggling around power settings because the larger power plants somehow magically don't have enough power to run everything when the smaller power plants do on small ships. Engineering should be a management of additional power and coolant flow in order to make systems perform _better_ than they would be were they unmanaged and left in their default state.
Not realistic for a futuristic space game? Hmm, interesting take.
Don't like it, don't use it or don't play the game. The nerf is much needed. No reason the corsair should be dominating like it is for a solo ship.
@@tylerbudahl5727bruh the Corsair ain’t domainating no one. Especially a half way decent fighter. It’s just a great ship to use overall. Just like the Connie but we don’t see cig forcing multicrew gameplay into that ship. Let alone, the other large ships like the Hercules series or the cats.
@@KiithnarasAshaa"Engineering shouldn't be..." So, aside the pilot all other crew only should sit bored and watch the pilot to play the game, or use their own ship. Well, that is what CIG wants to erase.
@@Haegemon And yet, the solution thus far has been the Antares and these changes to the Corsair, where players are expected to sit in a seat and do nothing until it is time to push a button.
Engineering is falling into a similar situation, with high expected demand for players to run around and poke components with healing beams and juggling around power settings in order to get the same performance out of a large ship compared to single-seater fighters.
I'm with you in giving multicrew ships meaningful gameplay, but there's a gulf of difference between incentive-driven gameplay - encouraging players to engage in gameloops for rewards or advantages - and barrier-driven gameplay. Everything about Master Modes, Engineering, and the roles of Multicrew gameplay all seem to center around Barrier-driven gameplay.
Who uses the remote turret on the top of the Corsair? If the forward guns are given to the co-pilot, is that crew slot doing both? And scanning? And Engineering? There are 4 crew max; pilot, 2 gunners, and the co-pilot. Gunners do other jobs when not in combat (Engineer), and the pilot/co-pilot can trade off scanning (hopefully), but 4 people and 5 combat positions will be an issue at some point.
P.S. If they take the top turret guns out, and replace them with a tractor beam, it might work. With the cost being the 360 degree defense.
I used to work 7 days a week for a few months in the run-up to tax year-end, so I feel for the devs. There are many industries where it's expected, but that doesn't make it any easier to work though. I hope it doesn't last too long and that they don't get burned out over it.
Restaurant, retail, hospitality, agriculture, forest fire fighters, event services and many other professions work 7 days a wee depending on the time of the year or whatever. It isn't great having to work 7 days a week, I've done it plenty of time, but it isn't unusual for software development to occasionally to do it.
the email didn't show a bunch of people complaining just that they need some extra work and will be compensated later.
Im sorry, as a game developer myself the "some level of crunch" thing is completely unacceptable, you thinking that its okay makes me loose most of my respect for you.. What happened at CIG is apparently due to Chris Roberts being pissed about the SQ42 demo "not being up to his standards", leading to the entire company being forced to crunch. The overtime they are being forced to do is, considering it is unpaid, and the "time off in lieu" only being usable after the project finishes, and payrises having been frozen for over a year, is outrageous. It hints at some insane mismanagment going on at CIG, which does not bode well for the PU or SQ42.
Yeah, CIG isn't look that closely at the data of the Corsair kills. They're just looking at the number. That's a huge mistake on their part.
Oh? and how do you know that? How exactly do you know what data they are or are not looking at? sounds like a blind assumption based on ignorance to me.
@@BearanormalPodcastspoiler: he doesn’t know
@@OneTomato no ya, that was pretty much where I was headed with it.
@@ethnine2692 The only number they’re looking at is $$$. Nerfing the Corsair isn’t about rebalancing, it’s about marketing their newest large ship.
I was just testing on tech-preview. I didn’t have any issues other than some slight jitter on elevator doors. But they otherwise worked fine.
If the corsair would be nerfed i would say just moving its size 5s to size 4s to lower its overall DPS, having a separate dedicated button pusher for its lower 2 size 5s is ridiculous.
As a social experiment, on some channel I spoke against nerfing the Corsair and on some channels I spoke for it. No matter what there was someone ready to be hostile with me.
As an animator who has crunched hard on feature films, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the crunch that devs are under ahead of Citizen Con. If CIG is mandating 7 day work weeks, it is likely that staff have already been crunching for weeks if not months ahead of time. I get that Citizen Con is a super important event for the company, but crunching more than 70 hours a week, for multiple weeks/months does real mental and physical damage to devs. It takes a long time to recover from that level of stress.
You must be fun at parties.
I'm sorry the lives of the people who make our games matter to me.
@@AlexanderCurtis I'm sorry you're assuming the mental state of an entire game company.
As a refrigeration technician I always find it funny when people complain about the occasional crunch. The crunch never stops in the trades.
@@karabak8103 Postal employee here, 18 years, used to work 60 hour weeks as standard, 13 days on and alternating sundays off with another employee. Crunch time for the USPS is December 1 to December 25, managers try to work us past 60 hours a week, and our "past 10 hours in a day" premium (x2 pay for 11th and 12th hour) is suspended during December, it's just normal time and a half overtime. I'm not complaining, but CIG issuing a crunch-time warning and people acting like they are being beaten with reeds is a little absurd to me. It's not like they are at EA doing crunch, it's CIG. Just my opinion.
When they advertised the corsair they intentionally mentioned the forward guns were all usable by the pilot. That was one of it's main selling features. It's meant to be highly combat capable, it misses other features that other Explorer ships have so this is how it compensates for that. I think this is a mistake.
It's great to hear that meshing is in a better state. I don't have a Corsair, but I don't think reducing the firepower fractionally for the pilot is the end of the world.
A 7 day work week for crunch is pretty bad, but unfortunately it's on par for the games industry. At least CIG appears to be treating them a little better than other companies with free food and stuff. But yeah, crunch is one of the reasons I never got into the games industry because no company seems to be safe from it, and some apparently only accept people that say upfront that they are willing to pull ridiculous hours for long periods of time.
Looks like its time to melt the Corsair then it flies like a brick and what makes it worth having is that everything dies that's in front of it. It is about time the CIG notice that more players play solo than in a group. I got the Corsair after testing it in the IAE it cam into the game.
The reason you are allowed to meld is because they know people will keep changing ships as soon as they fix them into the concept they figured for them. The same reason they created ships with a Max Crew of 1 and 2.
I totally understand why the corsair needed a nerf, but like others have said, it seems like a really strange way to do it.
Why it's always the elevators that are bugged EVERY fkin single patch .... wtf?
This has actually been the best patch (elevator wise) for me so far. 😅
If you look at the Corsair model the lower two front guns are actually mounted on something that looks like some sort of rail mount. If they switch those guns over to the co-pilot and give them a roughly 45° firing arc I really wouldn't mind too much - in the short term.
The problem is that the Corsair already can only support a crew of 4 and the co-pilot already controls the remote turret while another two are needed for the side turrets.
Once engineering is introduced who's gonna act as the chief engineer? It probably isn't the co-pilot if you want him to manage power distribution, the remote turret AND two of the main guns.
So pretty much as soon as the Corsair takes any kind of damage (and it's not meant to be well-armoured so it'll take system damage fast) you'll probably lose your two manned turrets to damage control / engineering at which point your co-pilot pretty much HAS to live in the remote controlled turret and won't have time for the main guns.
I'm not sure CIG has truly thought this through.
If they just keep it as is the Corsair will eventually balance itself among its competitors once working armour is introduced because at that point its shields will pretty much be the only thing thing standing between the crew and all the things that wanna squish them unlike with ships like the Redeemer or even the Conny. It'll have a great deal of firepower but only in the first few minutes or even seconds of an engagement. Once the hull itself is getting hit half the crew will be busy running around with duct tape and good will.
Add to that that pretty much all of its vital systems are clustered around one central point and you'll find that the Corsair, in future, could end up being very easily disabled once the shields are down. Why nerf it now when it's likely they'll have to change it again in the future?
The article was interesting for several things it didn't focus on. It was probably the most significant indicator that CIG intend for SQ42 to release soon. It did seem that the information was obtained from disgruntled former employees - which CIG is bound to have solely based on how big they are. It was a little odd that it implied the conditions were onerous when they are probably not unusually in the slightest for a lot of deadline driven work.
Master modes should be a bit quicker and having high boost speeds makes sense it's a space game.
I understand the rage around the Corsair changes, but as a Corsair owner it’s always been understood ships will get balanced.
It’s still a good ship for multiple game loops. I think people might be overlooking how functional it still is even with some weapons remapped.
Im glad they are reverting the boost back to what it currently is. I'm also happy to hear that CIG is starting to make larger ships require more crew and cannot just be flown by one pilot.
Three weeks to go... 3.24.2 is already looking ready for RC, so much so that the current live feels archaic rn!
I'm excited to try a Zeus ES with some store credit. Hopefully 3.24.2 is coming soon.
I didn't try the evos patch, but that thing about was weird from the beginning.
Tech preview testing has been going great from what I personally experienced.
I can't wait to see server meshing fully implemented!
I work in VFX and can tell you mandatory OT is a regular thing, the only issue I have is the "time in lieu" part, OT should be paid out in full to all employees working OT.
The comment about the corsair accounting for a lot more kills than other ships I feel like doesn't paint the full picture. As someone who fly's it, I bought it in game because of the guns but also the price. I think it's about 6 million AUEC, 2 million cheaper than the cheapest connie and about half the price of the 400i. The amount of pilot controlled weapons is a bit insane but this change would bring the pilot damage below that of a connie which has better survivability and manoeuvrability. Maybe changing the smaller wing mounted weapons to the co-pilot seat would have kept some more balance and options in that range of combat ships.
The comment about the kills IS an incomplete picture because it was Yogi's response to a player's DM. So he was brief and didn't specify. The data is most likely a complex calculation of ship price, number of people that own the ship and use it to fight, total amount of kills, total amount of deaths to weapons, ship role, time played of the owners.... so many things might be taken into account.
It's an incomplete feature. They are giving the copilot 2 of the guns both because the Corsair is OP for its price and because the copilot has literally nothing to do at all.
They stated in the complete feature you, as the pilot, will have control of all forward facing, non turret guns and will be able to pass control of any of the guns to the copilot.
People are literally crying over a change to a ship that performs better than average at combat when it's an exploration ship, and when the weapon systems feature isn't finished. Get over it. And you bought it with ingame money wtf...
so maybe a solution to the problem like most things are an economy change. Make the Corsair the same price as the MSR they should be competitors anyways. Boom you don't have anyone bit the upper mid game guys having it. nobody will hand out 10 mil like they will 1. Most of our balance issues are the result of a poor economy design.
The economy as a whole needs a rework. Recycled garbage shouldn't be making more than actively trading gold. 5uec gas tanks helps break this. The ship prices are all over the place even for competitor models. Combat armor is cheaper than pressure suits. Weapons are waaaay to cheap for the value in game. The rpair costs are nowhere near relaitve ie you can break wings off land and its only a 3k repair. Landing pad refuels have no elevated price to drag you back to your homeworld. They need to start getting experts in finance, mining, salvage, both combat pilots and transport, etc. It starting to show that they spaghetti monstered the wall.
I think if they base weapon velocity on power they are provided, it will fix 90% of the problems with PVP (Particularly the small zippy ship meta). Imagine you are in a reclaimer are being hassled by a fury shooting at you from max range, near impossible to down it with current weapons, but if you could divert high amounts of power to your weapons and the weapon's effective range became significantly longer, you could fight back and deal with the smaller target.
Nice, just got back into SC, and its nice to see you're still active making SC content! thanks
I could imagine they are trying to make sure as much as possible from last CitizenCon is in before this one as it really dampens the mood if every new thing will be discussed with "but obviously after last years announcements finish"
Hard to say with big events like this, they take a lot of coordination, for example I'm pretty sure quite a few of the community teams will be working 7 days a week.
So CIG *CAN* be influenced by public pressure...
Thats not why they reverted.
What about my 890 jump being exploration ship or the 400i?
No listen to what was said, Yogi posted a few days ago that he didn't even know that they slowed boost down and that it was supposed to be done at a later date and now we see he reiterated that it is still the plan to slow boost once again at a later date.
@@rooster1012 yeah, that’s what a lot of people do when they make a mistake and don’t want to look like they did it on purpose. They essentially throw someone else under the bus.
@@rooster1012 At this point Yogi is just trying to not get fired. Almost everything he has touched has made the game worse.
i think the changes made to multi-crew ships is a good idea, but CIG have not taken into account players who do not have a crew to play with, i feel the changes would have been less problematic if AI CREW was available to hire or the ability to slave guns should have been implimented before these changes.
I don’t care what Yogi says, CIG sold the Corsair with pilot full control of guns. If CIG wants to now change these ships and call it balancing, then we should get partial or full REFUND. This new Corsair not what we paid for.
Corsair change does make sense.
I am actually grateful for their quick response and revert regarding a change, that was out of place. I am super exited for CitCon and cross my fingers we get that SQ42 release date!
If the gun split on the corsair is for the front lower pair to be on its own turret control, it makes sense. The design even makes the nose look like it has a heavy front co pulot turret. Always struck me as odd that the pilot got a giant wall of guns under his control.
I was under the impression that this was always the scheduling at the end of the year. Hence why they take a good portion of January off to recuperate. 🇺🇦🇭🇹🇵🇸
If the Corsair needs tweaking, it's got six S2s, two S4s, and four S5s. Just give the pilot all the S2s, the S4s on the remote turret, and a pair of the S5s on each manned turret. The Corsair won't be quite so heavy a hitter when solo, but will be an absolute beast the more crew you get in it.
Former CIG, current IT here. Crunch time/working weekends happens all over these industries, it’s common. It indicates less than perfect management, not bad management.
When I worked at CIG, both my supervisors and the company as a whole treated me very well.
This article is a cheap fluffy hit piece, nothing more.
It would be nice if the fully crewed ships would have all turrets manned. Positions where you have to choose make no sense in ships where you have additional crew available.
That Corsair change is pretty rough, but I'm keeping my feelings in check. With full Omnisky loadout, if the pilot still retains it's two s4 wing guns, it's not that bad.
Pre-nerf: 2,282 DPS
Post-nerf: 1,922 DPS
We're only losing 360 DPS and the ability to quad-hit alpha damage like a truck.
However, if they're going to enforce multicrew on the Corsair, the bottom two nose guns should probably get their own capacitor or honestly I'd rather run the nose alone anyway and put someone on the remote/side turrets instead.
I will miss putting suckerpunches on my s4 wings, but I am willing to accept some kind of nerf.
Every year my work, and industrial factory, does an annual outage. We are "highly encouraged" to work extra days. It happens every October. The extra days seem fine from my point of view.
everyone needs to watch the amazing ad at the end lol. chefs kiss
I keep hearing people float the idea that the power triangle should be used to control the speed of ships. With the resource network using power for thrusters, weapons, etc., that seems close to that? I think they’ll add in a more prevalent heat system as well, beyond just weapons overheating, such as your engine?
Sounds like a typical "all hands on deck" kinda scenario. Mandating overtime is not uncommon. And it sounds like they're still adhereing to reasonable "demands" ensuring their employees are working hard, but also aware of their health and work load.
It's good to seem a leaning toward larger ships being disadvantaged if they're not properly crewed. The way it should be for those types of gameplay scenarios. This way the larger ships aren't necessarily the meta ship just because they're bigger/better than smaller ones.
Question for CIG/Citcon: What plans are there if any for accessibility options available in game? Do you have any dedicated players that are able to provide feedback, or do you have a specific team that will be (or is) working on ideas/options?
CiG has been very disappointing over this past year. Master modes is stupid regardless of whether they revert back or not. The bugs are horrendously numerous. They keep adding half assed features that barely work and never address the constant bugs that already exist. This game keeps adding ships to fund its development. When is the time to start getting this game ready for release? More and more players are bailing on this game because CiG doesn't listen to its players. Bugs go un-fixed so what's the point of posting them? Many of us feel this game has gone backwards not forwards.
This is not anything new. These are issues CIG had a decade ago and will have the same problems 10 years from now.
I'm still not understanding the point of the Corsair nerf. The copilot already has a weapon that they have to use, so they're forcing them to choose what weapons they have to use at the moment? A more reasonable nerf might be removing the 2 S4 guns if they want to reduce the firepower, but those four cannons should always be for the pilot.
I would like to have the option to assign control of certain weapons/functions to crew members but be able to control them from the pilot's seat when needed.
Asking people to relocate for work in VFX/Gaming works for Juniors since they usually don't have a house and a family. So requiring it limits your recruiting pool. The highly talented people in these industry will not bother unless they already live there, or are being compensated fairly plus paid housing. Studios that are find with remote work will have much more senior talent applying, but these companies don't want to miss out on the tax credits. So this tells me that CiG is limiting their talent pool.
If "crunch" was unreasonable, the affected employees would say "No. I'm not able or comfortable with those hours, so I will not work them." If termination or replacement is a factor for them, I ask the question: why would a person work for an employer that refuses to provide decent treatment when the person has marketable skills?
For weapons, I think the ship owner should be able to assign them to seats as desired. So if they are flying solo they can retain control of any forward facing weapons. Its more reasonable that turrets don't fall under pilot control, with perhaps the exception of any that face forward. Perhaps putting any that do in a gimble mode and allowing them to be assigned to the pilot seat.
I do understand that game balance is a thing and that this might be why they're trying to spread the guns among multiple seats in multicrew ships. It seems to me though, one person trying to handle more guns is still going to be less effective than a fully crewed ship.
The Corsair should have a chin turret if it's not slaved to the pirate. Because all the crew member does is press the button when the pilot has got the target in sight. So give it a greater radius, even if you have to reduce to size 4 to make that happen.
The idea of needing your friends in the ship with you running around in your medical gowns to make larger ships more combat effective is a great take
They should give the pilot the choice of shifting control of guns to other stations or maintaining control at their station. Fighters these days not only have the capability for the pilot to control the vast arsenal they have aboard their own plane but also to control the weapons of multiple planes nearby. Give us the choice to multi crew how we want.
Roll on CitCon, I will be buying lots of food and munch beforehand, and be sitting in me pants watching the stream from start to finish on my second monitor, whilst playing Star Citizen 😁
why would they release the Zeus explorer variant when we have nothing to explore? Especially since there is a bounty hunter variant and bounty hunting gameplay is available now? Seems like an oversight..
I think it is totally suitable for the Office hours on Sat & Sun, as long as they get a week of right after Citizen Con. Would be a nice compromise
7 day workweeks do suck, I've done it before. Had to work 20 hour days and only 4 hours to sleep, eat, or shower. Going home was optional. As long as they limit their hours during those days, it sucks but is doable.
Regarding the proposed changes to the Corsair, my feeling is that CIG should put off the “second seat” weapons changes until they institute AI crew and blades. The weapons have been pilot controlled since its release, and shouldn’t be changed until there is an alternative.
What CIG does in concert with its employee representatives is their business. One time in the 1970s, I worked for a major aircraft manufacturing company on a major Government contract to modify military aircraft. From the first week of July, to the first week in September, we worked twelve hours a day Monday through Friday and eight hours a day on Saturday and Sunday. The company willing paid fines to the state so they didn’t have to hire more employees only to lay them off when the contract was completed.
Question is: how much will an AI crew member or an AI blade cost? The same as an ATLS?
Question on working hours is: what is in the contract that was signed?
I look forward to seeing how well the Zeus makes the Connie look like it needs a rework.
I agree with some of the other commenters here forcing multi-crew by taking guns that were already controlled by the pilot away is not how I would like to see it. There should be better roles for crew and I'm really hoping engineering and the fire mechanics make it more valuable to have crew other than taking DPS away from the pilot
I actually like that they are trying to push and asking the team to work extra to get things ready for citizencon. With as long as some of these updates have taken and the overall length of development it is nice to see them making attempts to get things ready for citizencon.
It makes very little sence to me to split the forward facing guns between the pilot and co-pilot, especially when the co-pilot has access to the remote turret. In my option it would be better to just size the guns down by one, and develop something more useful now the ships dont have inventory, like make the suit lockers work.
I am always surprised that they do seem to always have people working on the weekends when a patch release since they send out hot fixes
A couple of 7-day work weeks before a major event should be expected no matter where you are. Sure it is not fun but employees can pretty much prepare for that crunch time all year.
I work in the air line industry and we have crunch every once in a while to push things out. Not nearly 7 days in a row, its usually just a few REALLY long days. I have had 3 15+ hour days in a row before but then we are given days off after and usually the company buys us lunch. I also have a pretty awesome salary where i can pretty much buy whatever i want when i want so these crunches are not so bad in the grand scheme of things. especially since the rest of the job has a pretty good work/life balance.
Im not sure how things are in the game industry but crunch is a normal thing. As long as they are paid pretty decently and have decent work/life balance for the rest of the year outside of the citizencon craziness then all is well im my mind.
The changes for the Corsair make no sense, why would forward facing fixed weapons be controlled by a seat that needs to operate the remote turret? That seems ridiculous.
It will never be the right time to slow down the combat even more than it already is
Thanks for the update...
I don't have a problem with the Corsair change. I think it makes sense that you would have to refit (install AI blades or whatever) a multicrew ship if you want to fly it solo. I've got a corsair that I intend to use solo in the future.
Asking employees that support citizen con to work a few weekends isn't that big of an ask. Especially if they are being given the option of taking the time off at a later date of their choosing.
if they turned the bottom guns into a twin s5 manned turret that’d be at least a little more usable and a better compromise than just having it essentially be a fixed forward turret
If multicrew ships are dis-incentivised for solo players, there should be a commensurate bump in earnings for 'solo' missions. Otherwise, as other people have said, running a multicrew ship is where rhe money is, and solo players are 'left out' to some extent.
Thanks for the updates !! 😊
My first cc, but wouldn't cig work longer hours every year before they invite the public to their house for a days long party? Wouldn't every business do this? Wouldn't you if you were having the neighborhood over for a thing?