You made good points with maelstrom, components, etc. and he just ignored them. The fighters can't shoot from farther to the side of the barn, because the barn doesn't care, only the tiny components inside, and those would have the same relative speed than a tiny ship.
@@XMathiasxX Yeah. He seems a bit desperate to be "right" and therfor gives somewhat weird answers. For example at 59:40 where Tomato talked about new stuff never tested before. Noone knows how all this will come together and here he says that "whatever" they do, its not goona work.
Multicrew can easily be fixed by giving anti-fighter turrets more range and velocity than the fighter equivalent weapons so they can actually hit the smaller targets. Base it off the powerplant size. The larger the power plant, the more energy it can push through the turret weapons, and the longer the range. For example using arbitrary numbers, turrets are given a base 25% increased range/velocity, S2 power plant gives an additive 25% range and velocity. S3 gives an additive 50% extra range/velocity. So in a carrack with an S3 power supply the turrets will have a 75% longer range and velocity than the normal S4 weapon it holds. Once you have the effective ranges dialed in so that fighters can't abuse their small size and apply damage with zero threat, you can then start adjusting the turret tracking to suit.
You are underestimating the problem by a lot. If they do what you say, they need a connie be able to fire weapons at 12500 m/s in order to fire at a hornet in equal conditions; with that projectile speed, the distance at which the hornet can't dodge the shots will be the same at which the andromeda can't dodge the hornet's shots when using a 1600m/s weapon like a ballistic gatling. That's a +681% increase. And that only brings the connie in equal conditions, but remember the connie is a multicrew ship, so let's have as many hornets as crewmen in the connie. I don't know if a connie should be in equal conditions like that though since it's not a combat ship, but it's the same for a Hammerhead, for instance, maybe even more of an increase. It's too much of an increase and too arbitrary. Maybe adding special S5 and above weapons that are made for dealing specifically with fighters (like flak, radar rounds or saturation weapons) would be a good idea but I'm not sure that allows for a lot of skill expression... Maybe with hacking or countermeasures, if a ship can use noise or hacking to make the radar weapons be unreliable for 10 seconds and an inferno or an eclipse can get close enough to make an effective attack in that time window, that would be nice team play. But it's not very good if that's the only solution... They really have to think out of the box with this one. Did A1 suggest any solutions? Edit: Ah sorry that's kinda what A1 suggests in the video. I think only changing projectile speed based on power plant size is not enough if you're not going to do this drastic speed increases, but adding different types of weapons that can only be used on S5 and above hardpoints is a way to add weapons that are effective for multicrew ships while preventing small ships from using them. Then you can tie the speed of those weapons to power plant size and weapon size and you extend their usefulness to many ship sizes.
@@PolBlanesCebrian A connie andromeda is 100% a combat ship, what are you talking about? Its literally a gun ship. Just cuz it has 4 beds and a cargo bay doesnt mean it doesnt also have 8 REALLY big guns and absolutely massive shields as well as a pocket fighter. A fully crewed connie is like two gunners, a fighter pilot, a copilot, and a pilot. A fully crewed connie is 2 ships, not one, and its got effectively 4 vectors of attack. Its primary role is supposed to be combat, your making it sound like a Taurus or Aquila. 4 fighters SHOULD be a tilted slightly against the connies favor, and 3 fighters should be more in line with the connie. Anything less is NOT good odds. Making the airspace around the connie more dangerous for fighters is one way to do it, but improving its armor, making soft deathing it harder, having an engineer on board to improve longevity, and above all... making it ever so slightly more agile, so its not just a fat lazy duck in a pond of winged sharks would be dimes making dollars.
that doesn't work, you'd be trying to hit a pixel at 3km moving across the screen arc at a much faster velocity and if they get closer you can forget it, the question is literally do you want turrets to be viable or not and if you think ship component targetting is viable above 800m, prove it, go film yourself shearing wings off at 3km repetitively in war thunder, it doesn't work and even if you do land a shot the fighter will just disengage.
Its engaging to see two people debate over a topic rather than each just agreeing with the other or vice versa yelling that each is wrong. This episode had me so focused on it that I had to put my work down cause I was so into it. Great job Tomato and Avenger
I’m not a PVP player, I always enjoyed flying around in SC because of that sense of freedom it used to have. What I don’t like about master modes is how the velocity changes with boost or how I have drag in space when I let it go or when I change directions. Boost should affect acceleration, not speed. Not to mention the handbrake when swapping modes, you can pool 70Gs out of nowhere. It breaks the immersion. Also, ships in atmo feel sluggish as hell since the total thrust output is linear, whenever you have to compensate for the planet gravity you lose maneuverability to try to land. There are other things too, like all the ships feel the same since they don’t account for the ship mass or aerodynamics anymore. Ships that used to be nimble now fly like a caterpillar.
Use NAV, ask CIG to give us shields in NAV, at least partially. Only SCM has lower speeds, and this is meant for combat. Speeds and accel are the same as before in NAV. Some ships that were too nimble have been adjusted, example the Hercules ships. The Redeemer was an exception, being a medium size, not very big, that nonetheless was punished with super low agility because gameplay. Now this is being corrected by nerfing those turrets and returning the Redeemer to its original role, but hey new drama because we get attached to what is a temporary state, unfortunatly. You re right about the crazy 70G brake when switching from NAV to SCM. But solution is not as easy as it seems, when you apply logic and take gameplay restrictions into account (which is why MM exists in the first place, and why ED did a similar thing many years ago already, maybe these devs have a point).
Turning off Coupled Mode will eliminate the "drag". The reason you slow down when in coupled mode is that your thrusters bring you to a stop. If decoupled, you will continue traveling in the same direction at the same speed.
The handbrake is explained that the Q-drive is what slows the ship down since the Q-drive is what gives them the ability to accelerate further which is why it needs to be activated in order to boost past SCM limits. The stop is fun in team fights since you can drop in on opponents and get straight to the fight. In the previous model you flew at max speed and had to flip and burn, mess that up be even a little and you ended up zooming past which meant you were worthless in a team fight. Current system now encourages more teamplay since it takes away the higher skill check required to dive in on opponents during a team fight.
@@Brigadier_Beau no, I’m not talking about coupled mode. In decoupled, use boost to get to top speed, and then rotate your ship around. The speed is not the same in every direction.
@@WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot_YTYes but That's just obscenely mentally challenged, a space ship with 900+ years in the future can't go over 400m/s is just a bad gameplay mechanic, let alone immersion and everything else.
Space combat newbie here (PvE only) - Master Modes has just raised the skill floor immensely for me. It's so confusing managing modes and submodes. It took me 15 minutes to even know what questions to ask global chat about what was happening. "Why is my ship slow? Why is fast now? Where are my shields? Why can't I fire my gun? What's master modes? What is the keybind? What's a submode? How do these modes layer?" All my pop-culture intuitions are gone. I now have no reference point for how space combat works in SC. I don't know what the play is when I want to flee (nav mode means taking more damage than I can afford, shield mode means never outrunning them while taking attrition fire). Engagements are becoming even longer range because it's harder to dodge at range. I feel crazy when people are saying it's more approachable, I'm having more trouble than I ever have. At least before MM I enjoyed the process of being bad. Now I'm just bad while unable to have fun. Thanks for the vid SpaceTomato!
Raising the skill floor means made things easier for the new player. But that doesn't sound like what you experienced. It sounds what you mean is the skill floor is gone, and it's a confusing mess for someone that only has space flight references from shows like Battlestar Galactica, Star Trek, The Expanse and the like.
@@nuanil Well, raising (the skill hurdle) of the floor (bare minimum) increases the barrier to entry, you've got it a little backward. Don't worry I was too until I looked it up. The skill floor isn't gone. It just takes much longer to get acquainted with the bare minimum of effectiveness. I want to be fair to CIG. They didn't destroy the game, but Master Modes is a step in the wrong direction for me as a newbie. I feel like so many people who are familiar with space combat are saying (on my behalf) that it's easier to get into the space combat post-MM for newbies, but I'm an actual newbie to space combat and it's been exactly the opposite experience for me. It's not impossible, I'm still able to complete PvE missions, but I'm also dying way more, and to stupid stuff like forgetting to switch modes, or not knowing how to flee anymore.
@@NoahDiesSlowly I was being hyperbolic by saying it's gone. When it sounded like for you the floor was so low it might as well be gone. Raising the skill floor means making things easier, as in "you can only be this bad at this", as it's reducing or eliminating opportunities to make mistakes either through engineered or administrative controls/solutions (good ol' OSHA HSE...). Raising the skill floor is handholding a new player through the experience. And lowering the skill ceiling reduces the maximum effect skill can have on the game. You raise the floor and lower the ceiling to normalize skill levels... which is fine for some games, but we were sold a hyper immersive simulation, and games with low skill ceilings rarely last long. The best example for this is before we had an optional SCM limiter, that you could adjust on the fly, and it was a guide to help keep you inside the speed envelope. This was an engineered administrative control to make throttle management easier for various reasons such as mouse/keyboard pilots that don't have analogue controls, players that are learning maneuvering and such. CIG just got upset that most of us turned off because we outgrew the need for it, and so in order to reduce the skill ceiling they created mastermodes that forced us all to utilize the SCM limiter during combat, and forgot that any part of the game existed outside combat.
@@lordfraybin And that's part of my point, meanwhile I turned them them completely off because they annoyed me, but I'm a HOTAS pilot and never needed them to stay inside SCM speeds, and only ever used them to intentionally tame my accelerations for fine detail work. Master Modes as an OPTINAL mechanic is a fantastic idea to help new players tame their rides.... the problem comes in forcing those of us skilled enough for Formula 1 on a closed track to be restricted to rush hour traffic.
When Master Modes was first introduced, no one raised objections to its testing. In fact, many of us were eager to explore a new flight model that was said to address issues with the previous one. However, after spending countless hours, days, and months playing SC with Master Modes, I must say that I never liked it from the start. Regardless of any future adjustments CIG might make to Master Modes, the flight model remains the only aspect that truly matters to me in this game. Many players who, like me, have invested both time and money into this game, share my dissatisfaction with Master Modes. Ultimately, the flight geometry in Master Modes doesn't make sense and is not enjoyable. There are numerous videos and podcasts that thoroughly address this issue, and ignoring them would be unwise.
It's a game about space ships. The flight model is quite possibly the most important thing. If it feels artificial and faked it takes so much away from the ship part.
@@Deceaser It's not fun, but with the lack of language skills you've been displaying in being able to read the words others type, I can understand how you would be unable to understand that others aren't finding it fun.
@@Deceaser I have given several detailed explanations at various spots in this comments section and others. But if you need it here? Sure. The only thing MM does is provide training wheels via hard limiters that make no sense. If we were roelpaying it as computer aided controls to keep the ship within an envelope fine, but then those limiters should disappear if I go decoupled. It also defaults SCM speeds even when in NAV mode and exiting quantum jump, and resets all the limiters. If I'm exitign Quantum I have to have been in NAV mode, and therefore should be exiting at NAV speeds with NAV limiters. Also because you can't do anything BUT fly in it, you are constantly changing modes back and forth, and inevitably essentially loosing any and all smooth transitions from slow to high speeds while doing ANY activity in game that doesn't. Not to mention the G forces experienced when braking from 1200m/s to 150m/s would liquify your internal organs, all of it takes you out of the game, and any semblance of suspension of disbelief reminding you that you are in fact playing an arcade game, when we were promised a near Newtonian space flight simulation, where everything would react that way you would EXPECT it to react in reality. The letter from that Chairman is still up stating this: "1. Because we were planning on modeling and simulating spaceships with a fidelity that hadn’t been seen before I felt we needed a simulation that would let the player have different flight behavior if a thruster is damaged, a wing is blown off or a pilot overloads his ship with weapons and ammunition? I wanted a system that could feel distinct for a huge variety of ships, with wildly different sizes and roles because in Star Citizen you can go from a single seater ship 15 meters in length to a huge capital ship over 1km in size crewed by many players. I wanted these ships to come with their own identity and feel much like similar sized cars, even if equivalent in mass can feel radically different. I wanted ships to have their own personality - not just a slower of faster version of the base ship. 2. The second is that Star Citizen will have a significant amount of player vs. player combat. I don’t know how many people played Wing Commander Armada (the first Wing Commander game to feature multiplayer) but it wasn’t that much fun in battle mode (the head to head mode). When you design a single player game you can deliberately dumb down the AI to allow the player to get on the tail and shoot down multiple enemies, which gives the player a sense of achievement. There’s nothing more fun than single handily clearing a wave of 10 enemy Kilrathi fighters. But let’s be honest, in single player games the ability for the player to gun down waves of enemies has less to do with the skill of the player because the player is usually overpowered in respect to the base enemies he will fight. You can’t do this in player vs player, and it’s likely that multiple players will have the same ship. Without a sophisticated simulation and flight model, with lots of options for a pilot to fluidly try different tactics to get the upper hand the battles can end up as a frustrating stalemate when both pilots have the same ship as no one can get on the other’s tail because you don’t have the same forces that affect air combat (namely gravity and air resistance) to bleed energy from the maneuvers." This is what we are holding CIG to, because it is what they sold us, and continually promised us.
@@SpaceTomatoToo And I've been talking with a few new players whom are confused AF about mastermodes, and even I've had more than a few times wondering why the f%*& can't I operate my tractor beam turret while landed on a pad, all because I'm in nav mode.
@@SpaceTomatoToo I wouldnt respond to most these people bro, they already know the answer, I dunno why they feel the need to cry out over stuff they shouldnt be worried about, attention I assume, or to get get pats on the back from other mongos.
Yes, they should have focused on weapon and armour / shield balance, as well as individual ship flight performance characteristics, instead of just destroying the fun of their flight model altogether.
I think a lot of people think MM and the flight model are the same thing since they came in/changed at the same time. While MM does affect the flight model(limiting speeds) its the flight model most people have issues with even though they say MM. I for one agree with AVG1 though im not a PVPer. I put a lot of time in to learning how to fly in every other flight model we've had. The flight model is something that affects everyone if you do ship combat or not. But it mostly affect ship combat and racing. You dont want FPS guys to designing mining or salvaging systems, just like you dont want PVPers designing how mining or salvaging should work. While their feedback is welcomed they might not fully understand how everything actually works. Having to actually work for something is where the real fun is. Most of us dont want the insta gratification of being good. You want a gradual skill increase over time so it feels rewarding for having learnt something. And the current flight model just clips the skill so hard its not fun for those people who are decent at the game. But you also need to make it accessible to new players. Which the old system didnt do but it also didnt provided a way to learn it either. The last flight model wasnt perfect but it did provide almost everything MM "wanted" . Most of my battles(99%PVE 1% PVP) took place within 100-200m, it was very cinematic but it took many hours of practice to get there. Now with everything as it is now you have to stay far away unless you can out tank the other ships. And for myself just isnt fun compared to want we used to have. The biggest issue I have is with CIG saying this is the way we always wanted it. IF that was so then why hasn't the game been designed that way from the start. You put out a product for the last 10 years mostly one way then change it to something else, Of course your going to have people not like the change and from those people a lot have stopped putting money into the game as we have felt that it was our only way to tell CIG that something needs to change.
I didn't like the previous flight model, my opponent could just boost away and recharge shields and that's it, I did it my self, after some time it was boring to fight
@@morganlefay-k4cI think we should compromise and just remove the speed cap between SCM and afterburner. Afterburner will just make you accelerate faster and your maximum speed for both will be around 400 - 500 m/s which is the speed that feels perfect at least for me
@@feariex I aggre, I to don't understand why they did it in this way with boosting past scm limit and then a magic drag is stopping you. Well we need to wait how they will improve the MM in 4.0
The problem is that artificial speed limits in space are fake and arcade like. This is the opposite of SIM. The tri-cording advantage could have been fixed by lowering the threshold for the G-force induced blackout mechanic. This allows for higher velocities for straight flight and lower for turning. The higher the rate of change in direction, the higher the G-force. This forces the pilot to slow down to dogfight without having an artificial speed limit. Counter to intuition this reduces jousting as high velocity passes with 180 degree turn around leaves you unconscious if done to fast. Otherwise you are left a flat sitting target. If you combine this with a range/velocity/accuracy balanced to weapon size. Small weapon size have an effective short range. Dog fighting small ships will naturally be closer together. This allows for a rich space flight SIM that is fun for everyone and allows for many different strategies for all classes of ships. MM for navigation mode to engage quantum drive makes sense then.
Yep. Assuming all vector thrusting, tri-chording can simply be fixed by making the fly-by-wire system to point available maneuver thrusters also to the correct direction.
@@RedHornSSS I believe that all the old mechanics are still in place but have artificial limits. These limits can be removed or reduced in values in combination with lowering the G-force blackout threshold values. It could be implemented in stages until they are happy with the result in pilot behaviour and over all feel.
1:17:50 Yeah, as Kenan said regarding the cargo changes, CIG replaced a temporary system with the long-intended one. It wasn't a "mistake". As for why it took so long to implement, it required PES - which was basically "rocket science" - and has to be compatible with Server Meshing. There are people who enjoy things you don't, and that's valid. "The community" isn't a hivemind. 🤷🏿♂️
I haven't spent a lot of time with Master Modes yet, but I've heard a lot of folks disliking it. It's a bit refreshing to learn that the issue isn't entirely with the Flight System & more about balancing. I would HATE for them to sink years creating a new flight model again.
honestly i think the bigget issue is that A1 has one way of thinking about and explain concepts and other people have a different way of lookign at and understanding concepts. We are also tryign to illustrate things in a third dimension with "time" and "Speed" as a derivided of time being the biggest issues we have, and thinking in "4 dimensions liek that" is thought. when he's talking about the target pilot needing to be unpredictable and needing to change direction to evade, while the attacker is behled to where the ship can possibly go... this is basically trying to explain what quantum physics is with relative particle position and observer bias and blindspots... I think CGI would do well to have a summit w/ content creators of all types to talk about master modes and combat tuning and get a set of wordage ubequitously used across the game to reduce confusion
I agree but there is so much feed back on RUclips and Reddit already it’s the developers job to take the feed back and figure out how to translate it to what actually needs to be changed.
My problem with what you say here is that CiG should have a summit with "content creators". Why? They are just players like the rest of us and contrary to popular belief, don't have any more right to determine gameplay than the rest of us. They need to have better communication with the "whole" player base. Many of the content creators, like Avenger, only care, regardless of what he says, about PvP and "excitement". He thinks, like the Warzone content creators, that constant action and high speed is what is fun. Compare that for instance with Arma style tactical play where slow and methodical is actual "simulation" style play.
I started playing in 3.19, I was in awe of how the ships felt. Now with master modes it feels so slow.. even racing ships feels slow what’s the point of racing without needing crazy reaction time like pod racing from Star Wars?
@@strife1431 (in the M50) nav mode still feels kinda slow. I need faster reflexes doing F1 racing in assetto corsa. Maybe I need to give it another try.
As a connie pilot I feel his pain of challenging the smaller fighters in close quarters. The turrets turn and fire rates don’t seem designed to compete in that arena.
Master modes made me mostly stop playing the game, and I'm not even a fighter. It makes flying a chore and it really kills my suspension of disbelief because it makes so many wierd stuff happen (like the stupid space braking and deceleration)... Anyway, go back to the previous model, make a more realistic tri-cording, greatly reduce acceleration (ship feel like they weigh nothing) especially for the thrusters, increase max speed, increase the difference between weapon sizes and fix turret. A size 4 weapon should shred a Mustang in only a few shots. And make big ships be scary. They shouldn't be able to be destroyed by a single Mustang but a swarm of them and with BIG losses.
The problem, as A1 explained, stems from the ratio of the target ship's max speed vs its size and acceleration rate when compared to the projectile speed of the attacker's weapons. There's always a range at which weapons will always hit the target no matter how they move. That range is the range at which a projectile will reach the target before it has time to change it's velocity enough so that the predicted position falls outside the ship completely. S3 Ballistic gatlings have a speed of 1600 m/s. A hornet has a speed of 220 m/s (not sure but let's just say so). If the hornet had infinite acceleration and could instantly change direction and get to max speed, they could have a speed diferential of 440 m/s (220 to one side then 220 to the other side). At 1600 m, the pip will efectively move 440m instantly, at 800m it will move half as much, etc. If you're close enough that the pip moves less than the size of the ship, that's the distance at which your shots can't be dodged. If the hornet is moving up then down, it's cross section is 7m, that means in order to make your gatling undodgeable you have to be 25m away (that's if the hornet could instantly change speeds, the real distance is larger). So let's do the same for the andromeda. Front cross section is 14m, max speed is 200m/s so the diferential is 400m/s. The distance at which it wouldn't be able to dodge anything is 50m, now take into account that larger ships are slower to accelerate and the difference becomes even larger. If you take accelerations into account, the Hornet has 9Gs of maneuvering acceleration (according to some random website) which would mean it can change its speed by 88m/s in 1 second (the time it takes our projectiles to make 1600m), that's the diferential instead of 440. The distance at which it can't dodge is now shy of 100m. While the andromeda has an acceleration of 2.2G, giving a diferential of 21.5m/s which means it can't dodge anything shot at them from less than 1036m. It could use her main thrusters to get 4.5G, getting a diferential of 44m/s, but then it would have to expose its length cross section of 61m. If it did that, it wouldn't be able to dodge anything shot at them from less than 2218m. Something like making larger ships impervious to small weapon damage and giving them specialized large weapons to deal with fighters would be the only thing that comes to mind, but that would just create a standoff zone and make fighters able to avoid larger ships while the larger ship can't chase. Meaning neither would kill the other. Increasing projectile speed based on power plant size would require very large speed differences (in this case, the andromeda would have to shoot projectiles 700% faster than the hornet in order to be in equal conditions, neither being able to dodge at 1000m), that can't be the only element in the solution.
Just increase turret weapon velocity. Make it three or four times higher than non turret weapons. The Constellation wouldn't be able to dodge a F7's fire, but it's not supposed to be able to. It's supposed to tank it. However the F7 is going to actually be at high risk of getting hit if it does that attack run alone. Due to the higher velocity of the defending hulk's guns and the HP disparity 1v1 the F7 would lose every time. Ideally you'd want the hp, dps and velocity disparity to be enough that the Constellation could take 2 f7 at once. Not kiting into 1v1 fights like fighters do in large battles but physically taking fire from two f7's at once and win provided the connie has manned turrets.
@@PolBlanesCebrian I think the idea of "dodging projectiles" is fallacious. In order to dodge projectiles, you either need unbelievably low projectile velocity or absurdly high thruster output. This makes the game feel "arcadey". The objective is to make it so that in dogfighting, it is possible to evade and exit the "kill box," which is your opponents cone of fire, within their weapon's effective range. With accelerations being so high, particularly rotation rate, and scm so low, it makes keeping nose on target far too easy, which devolves into a nose-to-nose circle strafe DPS race. The only evasive manuver you have that might be effective is to "push through" your opponent and drop chaff. Even then, they can often times react in time to stay within effective range. Dogfighting is largely about managing energy states, and when you can pull 25gs of acceleration with a Vietnam era top speed, it makes changes in energy state trivial. Also, you can't make large ships impervious to fighters otherwise you create a ship size treadmill where noone would ever fly anything smaller than a corsair. We had this back in the constant shield regen era, where the average player would solo fly a 600i as a way to participate in PVP because it made them impervious to all but balistic fighter builds.
@@HitmannDDD but we also have torps and missiles now to make sitting still and tanking riskier. It should take a small squadron to take down a large ship. Or they should have an Ion or Inferno or distortion weapons. In short small ships taking on large ships should require strategy and tactics - not an ace pilot dodging return fire. The bigger ship should win. Nothing has changed in what you said except now the solo player flies a Corsair instead of a 600. The Corsair should be at risk from 2-3 medium fighters and at little risk from 2-3 light fighters. That's how it should be. The real balance is that flying a large ship solo in future trying to do PvP will be expensive. There will be engineering to deal with plus all costs for repair, rearming and refueling going up. I think you'll see less solo 600's in PvP and more of them running away at the first opportunity (I solo a 600 now and I avoid ship battles as much as possible)
@@essentialasa the difference is neither the corsair nor the 600i are impervious to fighter damage at this time. It's not the best tool for the job, but a fighter needs to be able to damage a large multicrew ship otherwise the fighter becomes irrelevant. Multicrew ships should need to rely upon turrets or other fighters for defense against a fighter. If the fighter cannot bruise the large ship, it can just ignore the fighter and not even react to it's presence, let alone be forced to retreat by the fighter.
I think a lot of the building anger over MM and the flight model is yet again something half baked was implemented and instead of being left it it was served up and forgotten. Devs pulled away and reduced in priority, the team has said multiple times they would work on x but don't have the staffing. If they kept doing arena commander builds and testing up coming changes and complete variations I feel the community would be happier as there is tangible progress and data driven development. Hell these component changes recently announced, why are these not in AC for the few months before it gets pushed to live?
I follow the game a long time and put money into it in some early state. I remember both Chris Roberts and the website talking a lot about the realism of the flight model in space and atmosphere for this game. I linked many times the original text: "Star Citizen doesn’t do that. We model what would be needed on an actual spaceship, including correct application of thrust at the places where the thrusters are attached to the hull of the ship - in our model moment of inertia, mass changes and counter thrust are VERY necessary. Star Citizen’s physical simulation of spaceflight is based on what would actually happen in space." So yes, we expect a realism in the flight model master modes does not give us. And that at least is why I'm angry. I play games since the 70s. I was working in game development as coder for some time. The max speed should not be the problem in today games. If they have old ways to check collisions, they should change it and not make the speed slower. And desync will still happen if you have strong thruster to change your direction fast. Has also nothing to do with the max speed. I want the game as realistic and believable as possible. Patch 3.23 made everything flight combat to arcade mode. That's not what they promised.
CIG has a credibility problem. They keep saying we will fix this "later" this is just a tier 0 implementation. But then not come back and touch it. We were promised back in 3.14 when they flat lined devices and components that 3.15 and its sub patches would be the great device rework and rebalance. We are in 3.24 now and that still has not been done. They keep tweaking and nerfing ballistics without introducing armor. So once they finally put armor in, all the ballistics work will need to be tossed out and redone. This is over a year of wasted time and money only working a half loop. CIG needs to start delivering on promises instead of spouting off more false misleading statements.
What I do not understand is who CRoberts thinks will fund this project? The older, professional demographic was attracted to this project because of the depth and intelectual side of it, the lack of baked in skills and the time it requires to build up a good skillset to be good at your chosen profession. These older people are used to doing this every day in their own careers. Hence, they are attracted to it, and also, this is why they plopped loads of money into the project. This is not a 40 or 60 e game, many of us plopped much more. When they all of a sudden turned 180 and introduced MM, they alienated the backers who built and supported the game for a decade, in favour of simplified mechanics that appeal to younger players, who have less attention span, who do not care nor want to spend time to build skills, they just want to have fun, untill thr next shiny thing comes along. Battlefield players are different from fortnite players, specifically for this reason. This is the same as manual vs automatic cars. The younger population will not be retained for that long, nor do they have the funds nor interest in investing and buying ships long term. It might be a short-term cash grab, but long-term, removing the sense of challenge and then progress and satisfaction, the average younger player will lose interest, in playing as much as in investing. If CIG dumbs down every loop with simple mechanics, after one tries them a few times it is natural to seek a different stimulus if there is no mechanic built in to keep you interested in progressing. One ship can buy them a whole new game (experience), the while funding idea was based and built around long term planning, which is not a priority for the masses. Instead of building a universe where every proffession has depth of skill to keep you engaged, CIG is building multiple mediocre gameloops that will get old fast, MM has proven exactly that.
I can get behind the idea of "Make multi crew ships good" far more than just the general hate for MM. If A1 is pushing the desire for Multi crew to actually be worthwhile and a true threat for fighters, then I am on board with actually agreeing with him. I think most people are there though, and I even think CIG want that, but they are just leaving us hanging in the dark for too long with no updates, and I think that is what is frustrating people the most. If I rock up in a redeemer (long live the king), the fighters in the area should flee in terror
@@falcon758 They HAVEN'T "left us hanging in the dark" tho. Yogi has communicated PLENTY about further changes to come, which Since Tomato was referencing. A1 just didn't bother to directly address that, strangely. If you mean that the changes haven't arrived yet, of course not. Major changes never come MID patch cycle. MM JUST arrived in 3.23. It doesn't actually make sense to expect more major changes until 4.0, which Space Tomato also politely pointed out.
I'm not a fan of MM or the changes, but not so much for the reasons that A1 stated, more just that it took a flight model that used to have a really fluid feel to it and had a lot of depth and nuance to learn and changed into something that's janky and dumbed down. I dislike the fundamental concept of the modes and the switching between them, and I would prefer to see it removed all together so we can go back to that previous fluid experience. I think A1 is definitely right about the community and it's frustrations though. Whether it was originally intended or not, this game attracted an awful lot of people based on it's previous flight model. Those people are upset with the changes, and the only communication we've had from CIG on the topic is a couple of posts on Spectrum from Yogi and since ISC video where they just repeatedly state that they're happy with the changes. And before we were told that changes would come with 3.24 and big changes would come with 4.0, but now we're being told that those changes aren't coming until later. It just feels like yet another tier 0 thing that CIG throws out half finished and then moves on and forgets about, except this thing is the single most fundamental gameplay element this game has to offer.
All the things could have been fixed on the old flight model as well, The new flight model feels horrible for even non-pvp related things switching in-between the two modes all the time Saying that balancing can fix Master modes I honestly think is irrelevant, literally the balance and changes could have fixed the old flight model as well
I think they should make the ships go as fast as they can with thrust and combining vectors etc. I think the limiting factors should be the limitations on the human body in the game. If you pull too many Gs you should pass out, crush your body, die etc. Also speeds and acceleration could be like Avenger is saying about momentum and mass and the physical strengths of the ships. If you fly toward the ground too fast and try to pull up in a plane the wings can break off, cause damage to the ship etc. They should then let us have the g force keep us in safe limits unless we turn it off, or let us do custom limits to find the edge of conciouseness, and stamina.
At 21:42 Tomato hit the nail on the head that he gave up on it being a sim and he's not happy with that conclusion. To that I say why give up on it being a sim? Bring back realistic physics and mike it a sim again!
The Go-cart analogy was good. I think A1 is right that if we're constantly up against the speed wall it doesn't feel like free flight, it feels like we're restricted.
Avenger_1 is so on point here. I wish the SC flight model got closer to realism to not further away. I wish the mundane task in life like moving boxes got further way from realism. I like space tomato as a person, but his videos are not critical enough of SC for my taste. I can understand this somewhat because he makes his living as a SC RUclips content creator so he must aim to please his audience.
I think you might have been spot-on with the components talk, it’s a shame that it wasn’t discussed further. Avenger is right about the size difference between ships, but Maelstrom and the Components system looks to combat that directly. Smaller gun sizes will take longer to pierce through the hull but, add onto that, you need to be focus firing on a component which is MUCH smaller than a fighter. Then deciding which components to begin targeting as the larger ships will absolutely need multiple components to go offline to really stop the ship. Sure, a Constellation or a Carrack is a big target but it’s actually a bunch of tiny heavily armoured items.
This podcast was very enjoyable to listen to. I've already commented several times on different videos about this issue in the past few of days. And to be absolutely honest, I am not a PVP-er. I would like to be, but I'm horrible. What truly rubs me the wrong way about this new flight model is the disbelief of fluid dynamics in space and mode switching. I'm not a developer and I don't really know how to fix this situation, but I do know those two particular aspects of the Flight model need to die.
Flight was actually in a good place from 3.9.1 to right before MM. I used to not agree with A1 in many areas, but I totally agree when it comes to MM. This really took the fun out of dog fighting for me. Way to many ships are slugs in atmosphere, to the point they are slower than planes today. That makes no sense.
I'm one of the casual people that were talked about, who joins and leaves the verse with the update hype. I've played x5 stints (2-3 months at a time) since the end of the kickstarter. This past year I've seen and messed with both recent flight models. From someone who doesn't PVP, Avenger's paint drawings helped me understand the fundamental issues I'd been feeling with ship combat (PVE at least). I never got to the skill ceiling in any model because frankly, I'm just waiting for a 1.0 release to sink my teeth into the game, especially the pvp aspect. It's PERSONALLY disheartening to play and grind away at features I know will get changed. After the many years of flight feedback and model changes, I truly hope they listen and work on mastermodes. I agree that a moderate-high skill ceiling should be in the game for ship combat. If they want the game to be played for years to come, the game needs that depth. The same way they're working on furthering the depth of the environments, missions and reputation as of recent, the flight model needs that too. Hell, this flight model felt so simple that I purchased a flight stick. I've always used mouse and keyboard, but 3.23 gave me the push I needed to spend $200 and learn to play HOSAM. It felt so mundane that I needed to add a layer of complication to get the satisfaction of improvement. As I do agree with a majority of the points made in this podcast, I will say that as crazy as it may seem, the flying is NOT the end all be all for every star citizen player now. When the kickstarter launched, it was important the game was this amazing OPEN WORLD space SIM game. Previously, combat and bounty hunting were the most important things for me. Now, I'm most excited for base building. That feature-set of the game could make or break how much time I spend in the verse come release. To be able to link salvaging, mining, and every other money making method to pool it into a home that shows the tremendous amount of time I put in is the most important part for me. One of my buddies is only interested in purchasing a game package once the bunker/fps part of the game is not a buggy mess. He has no interest what-so-ever in how his ship flies or how he gets there. He just wants to gun run and mindlessly shoot ai. TLDR: Casual feels the flight model is lacking in depth but is easier to get the hang of. Avenger's paint drawings helped this causal to understand why it felt that way.
Interesting... I've the opposite feeling. I've always used/preferred HOTAS prior to MM. Now, I don't even bother using my $1500 worth of peripherals with this game. I do play DCS a lot more now though....
I appreciate this one tomato. I really like A1. He is a passionate guy. It's the kind of person we all have at our job that it's hard to keep up with but if you can leverage their knowledge and passion correctly we can really get a lot out of them. It would be really cool to see CIG engage various community members to help shape the future of SC into a better place.
The problem with MM is it feels fake. With the previous flight model your speed was fully under your control, sometimes to your own detriment. but this made sense. When you coming in to land at an outpost you would need to manage your speed and velocity to land well. Now with MM you just hit a button that brings you down to an approach speed and then hit the landing gear button that brings you down to a crawl speed. This interaction feels fake. With the previous model even pulling off a smooth landing felt great. Now it feels like crap because the flight model feels fake and divorced from reality. Not even combat flying, just regular flying.
I've stopped playing since 3.23, mostly due to the constant server desync. But Master Modes (in its current iteration) is also a big factor. The flight experience is worse than it was previously, and I'm not (much of) a dogfighter. I look back to the "physics isn't a dirty word" post and feel like we've lost something important. Space drag, fake space brakes, arbitrarily low speed limits that 21st century aircraft can easily exceed (and mid 20th century spacecraft eclipsed by many orders of magnitude) are too far removed from reality to make spaceflight immersive. I realise that actual orbital velocities would be too much for the engine and servers to handle, but we're knocking up against the harsh reality that cinematic Star Wars style space combat and realistic 6DOF are very different things that aren't really compatible without making huge compromises that render at least one of those goals impossible to attain. Personally I'd accept cool cinematic dogfights in atmosphere only, where speeds are necessarily lower, and ship speed and manoeuvring are limited by aerodynamics, and informed by atmospheric density and gravitational effects. You could have the same thing in space with very dense gas clouds with a little scifi hand wavery, but otherwise, then let space combat be super fast with wildly fluctuating ranges.
I mean, i can see where A1 is coming from. But a lot of times i just get the same feeling about what hes saying as i do when someome tries to say weve never had true communism.
I've watched this 3 times now. I find nothing wrong with avenger 1's take our presentation. I do see his frustration with the Moron Modes flight model. I share it. And that's coming from a non pvper. It was just much more immersion friendly. And a LOT less likely to cause cognitive dissonance.
17:01 - This is the main problem with Master Modes. It is a flight model designed for people that don't like to fly spaceships, by people that don't like to fly spaceships. CIG should just forget about PvP balance for a while and create the most immersive, deep, believable and cohesive flight model they can. PvP would be challenging, but CIG will have to make PvP 100% optional anyway because the vast majority of their players aren't interested in PvP. Simplifying PvP to the point of making all flight trivially easy won't entice players that aren't interested in PvP to begin with, and it will certainly drive away everyone looking for a deep and engaging PvE experience.
@@texnorthman I can absolutely see where you are frustrated by MM. But that’s not why master modes was implemented. Chris Roberts has this unhealthy and incredibly stupid obsession with WW2 era airplane combat portrayed in Hollywood movies like the original Star Wars trilogy. Since he dictates everything out of CIG…. That’s the actual reason why master modes was implemented. The fix that might allow master modes to be both fun, and WW2 cinematic like would be to slow engine and booster acceleration by two thirds in ECM. And lower booster capacitance by about three quarters to match the artificial speed wall.
@@jbirdmax if you want an authentic modern air combat experience there would be no guns, at all, it would just be BVR all day long at 70km+ ranges and running away from radar...
To be honest, i never understood how far back CIG are on the flight model. I feel like it's that one thing that I would have made sure to nail first. Like it's so important for the game. Atmospheric flight model is pretty much inexistent or in a really bad state and we havent even heard of what they are doing with it. Yet they want to release SQ42. How the hell are you going to release a game centered around flying ships when the flight model is so poorly implemented right now. Like it's fine and working, but clearly it's something that needs to be really good. If you look at a game like GTA 5, the tuning on the driving is just perfect for that type of game IMO. It's not full sim, but their physics engine is so good that the cars really behave like you expect/anticipate them to behave. That's what CIG should be going for. Something that feels believable, but is leaning a little on the arcade and fun parts as well.
Great discussion. I just dont really liked when you said we dont want or we are the crowd for another rocket league...Im a Rocket league player and i have to say that rocket league have one of the most enjoyable control system and also a very vey high learning curve, but the process of playing and learning is always enjoyable... you start the ball go everywhere, you have no control, after a while you get the speed right and you are able to calibrate your speed.. after you learn to do aerials .. and start of doing more and more crazy thing in the air.. while at the same time controling a bouncing ball... doing micro adjustement in trajectory and boost... I would say if SC would have a system like Rocket league but for ships.. it will probably be a flight model that would be praised... In rocket league you have player that always overshoot the ball, miss it.. not able to calculate angle to shoot.. and some other in high leevel you will never be ble to touche the ball and they will controll it either on the groud or in the air as they are magician...That a system with a crazy learning curve and skill but easy to understand and very veyr fun to try to become better at because it simple and you focus on your movement instead of focussing on milllion of buttn to press.
Great talk Space Tomato and Avenger_One two of my favorite RUclipsrs for Star Citizen. I like the talk about the trouble with Master Modes. I started playing this game in 3.22 and was mostly drawn to the game by the quality of the the flight model. I was very disappointed when they switched to Master Modes, mostly because it disrupts the gameplay. I would like to add though that I really do not care how they design their game so if they want to do Master Modes who cares, however Master Modes breaks the game lore. They are telling us that that multiple alien species would agree to put a button on their dash to force the speed of their ships slower so that they are better targets. So a highly aggressive species like the Vanduul, for example, would agree to slow their ships to make them better targets when all they want is to dominate and take over systems for the resources. Master Modes does not match the story. If they want to control combat speeds they should do it with some made up physics, like maybe the shields becomes unstable at a certain speed, or some other made up physics reason. No intelligent person or even (made up) alien species would choose to make themselves a better target. The speed and maneuverability of the Vanduul Blade was a serious threat in 3.22, now in 3.32+ it is more of a death trainer because it has neither the handling nor the speed to make it effective. This is the same for all of the light fighters.
I’m a long time backer of 10+ years and I agree with your guest. master modes right now just feels so wrong as artificial speed limits with ships stuck together with virtual elastic bands has destroyed the flight combat experience. I’ve stopped putting money into this game until flight combat becomes fun and challenging. To slow down combat, bring it down into atmosphere of planets where it makes sense, but space combat should be space combat following the laws of physics IMO.
Easy solutin for multicrew: Heavy fighter (Scorpius)turrets: Size 3 Guns Medium Multicrew(conny/Corsai) Turrets: size 4 Guns Multicrew (A2/HH)Turrets: Size 5 Guns ALL S3 Shield have Active Regeneration under fire ALL Turett Guns Have 25% morer projectile speed and Range. Weapon Speed / Range: S1: 1000 / 1250 S2: 1250 / 1500 S3: 1500 / 1750 S4: 1750 / 2000 S5: 2000 / 2250 S6: 2250 / 2500 S7: 2500 / 2750 I know the numbers are simply but they work mathematicly and gamephysics are only numbers.
Didn't Yogi during CitCon 2023 say something about weapons of smaller size no longer going to be effective against the armor of larger ships (like firing 9 mm against a tank was the comparison)? That would solve the fighter meta against large ships that Avenger was taling about.
@@Sylar0n You made me go search for it. It was not during citcon, but during an ISC that this topic was scratched. ruclips.net/video/enjxVl35G9U/видео.html at around 8 min. This in combination with armor I guess has the potential to solve the problems with small vs. larger ships.
WW2 style combat for a space game? That's DAF. Clearly it isn't working. You can't have dogfights if there's no one in the game to fight with. SC has suffered the biggest loss of players faster than any other time in its history. At this rate, by the time this "game" comes out (if ever) there will be no one around to play. AVENGER_ONE is the dose of truth that CIG needs to hear.
1:28:08 acceleration is so damn high, always was. Also it was a huge mistake from cig not nailing components and their scaling down, especially of power plants and thrusters.
Totally agree with Avenger One. It would have been fine if master modes was only in Squadron 42. I no longer play SC since Master Modes released in PU Live. I just wasn't feeling the "sim" part anymore. No worries, I'm sure nobody (in CIG) is going to miss me. Time to pack up my HOTAS and clear the desk. Quite frankly if SC was in my Steam library, it would have been moved out of my "Simulators" favorite group (containing FPV sims, DCS, MS Flight Sim, etc.) and into "MMORPG Tier III" which contains No Man's Sky., which, I would probably launch more often because it's gameplay or "sim" better matches it's stylized looks.
A1 is definitely correct when it comes to the problem with effective range. Its not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. You can calculate the problem, you can quantify it. But I could tell it went completely went over Tomato's head though, based off his returning questions that I didn't think made much sense.
I could give them more funding... but I won't... because I feel the game isn't going toward what I was sold initially... if they can'T even figure out the flight model in 10 years... well they have no idea what they are doing then.... that's not looking good for the futur.
Not a fan of master modes but also not a fan of jousting at 1400 mps against a dude back strafing. If we really wanted a sim we would be shooting at each other from miles away and lasers would be hit scan. I want something fun, with a high ceiling and looks cool.
CIG added 'character giving blind spots" to every capital ship, which always meant that large ships were going to die to small ships which are faster. That has been a flaw from the beginning, when they removed the stern turrets off the Javelin and Idris. Heck, the Hull C has *no* turrets that can cover the lower half of the ship. CIG clearly always intended large ships to require small ships to survive - which is fundamentally flawed, because CIG also wants people to be able to actually fly and enjoy large ships. They need to course correct on large v small ships, and flight model changes - the flight model is currently just bad. It is not beyond salvaging, but ... lets get real, instant acceleration thrusters and a hard, narrow speed band ... really? Slowing combat is good until you remember that large ships are even slower (by CIG design), so they become glacial and super dull to fly - and they don't have full turret coverage so they absolutely will just die in the 'Verse.
We need video with A1 and BuzzcutPsycho! Make it happen Spacey Tom :) would love to watch the debate. I feel both have good points in regards to MM, so would love to see these 2 discuss it.
I have to submit an idea: what if we didn't have to switch modes but if we went over a certain throttle value for a certain amount of time the weapons and shields would drain on their own, then charge back up when operating under SCM limits again?
What are the big problems is they funded the entire project by selling individual spaceships. If the goal is to accommodate a ton of people you were going to have someone who has a literal fleet of 10 or more spaceships that realizes they really don't like being a pilot because of the design of the flight model.
The way I see Master Modes, most of the valid complains that are related to the flight model are problems that Yogi and his team have already addressed that they want to work on. It seems to me as though people disregard that fact and complain about the flight model as if it failed already, when it hasn't even finished development. Yogi explained to us to initial release goal of Master Modes, which was as follows: "re-introduce the relative slow flight gameplay (we're talking WW2 speeds)". He followed it that by talking about what it achieved (all of which I've also noticed)... - Combat is closer than before which has resulted in being able to see your enemy and their ship much better - It made combat more accessible by forcing everyone to fly at speeds that even experts in combat were using anyway. That way you aren't flying mock 5 landing a few shots, turning back, and the shields of that ship are already back up. If you've ever played against anyone but professionals, this was such a problem, I refused to play any further. You get nothing done at those speeds for both sides. - And then he talked about ship differences are more "meaningful" which I don't have enough money to test this out. He also spoke of what their next adjustments are. But its not like this was his only communication. He had talked previously about how MM lacked any proper skill and while it made entry into combat easier, the skill ceiling was still low and this was something they intended to improve. > robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3/thread/weapon-groups-do-not-persist-between-flight-modes-/7152617 > robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3/thread/request-for-yogi-can-you-make-a-video-to-show-us-w/6818844 In Summary? No, it's not working currently, but it's also not finished currently, so you can't claim it has failed... He is also aware of many of the problems with the flight model and does want to bring more skill into the flight model. And honestly, until Yogi adds those changes, the best you can do is provide constructive feedback and actually tell him what you are wanting to see instead of saying "its sucks! Pull a solution out of your rear!" The reason I avoid talking about MM with this community anymore is because both sides of the isle have become so clouded by their feelings that they complain about issues that are either not related to MM or are issues Yogi has already addressed that they will be finding fixed for.
Exactly what I've been saying but these folks are so hyperfixated on the game that they can't help but be doomsayers. The game can't be that bad if you're playing it 24-7 and editing videos on it when you should be doing almost anything else. It's very unfinished, you can't call it out this way in its current state.
My issues with your comment is, that SC for most part revolve around space battles, and 14 years of development later, they continuously produce crap. The MOST important part of the game, the big reason why most people care about the game, the ships is half baked system. Imagine you make MMORPG and for 14 years you cannot make even polished dogfighting. This is the first system that should've been at polishing stage, not active/delayed development stage. Its such a huge red flag, its terrifying to some one who spent 250$ on the game. The devs are unable to have even remotely viable CORE systems. How many years I still need to wait? 5? For ship combat 1.0 to come out? Im sorry what?
@@SimplyVanis It’s completely okay to put the game down and come back in 5 years when we have MAYBE 2-3 completely functional gameloops. It’s what I’ve been doing since 2015. The scale of a game we all want isn’t going to come overnight, it sure as hell isn’t going to come by even November 2025. They’re taking steps in the right directions, slow albeit but steady nonetheless.
my understanding is that the eventual goal is for the cockpits to become fully clickable like DCS. How are you proposing to look down and click a button to engage a missile or gun at 1500 m/s? and befoer someone says keybinds see above fully clickable cockpits. You have to be able to control your systems and fight. Anything else and just play ace combat. This is directed at the full speed combat guys.
@@fathead8933 That's what the interact prompt they included was for, combined with the faceware head tracking so you just shift your gaze to the button, the F prompt pops up and you press F. And outside that they need to fix in-game key-binding to accept modifiers and add every MFD function as a key-bindable action
My old man used to say if you don't have time to do it right the first time when are you going to have time to redo it correctly. My problem is that they shouldn't change something like this half assed without fixing it.
I just wish all but main thrusters were less powerful. Maybe they'll take it in that direction after aerodynamics start being a thing and VTOL mode starts being important.
@@RoroYaKnow I doubt that limits the thruster power of all the ships around :) I guess main thrusters are a bit too powerful as well since you hit max speed quite fast as A1 mentioned.
@@Qwarzz Yes.. but that can be controlled via "acceleration limiter" Just like top scm was controlled by speed limiter. I don't recall when they removed the blackouts and red outs, that let you know you were going too fast for that manuver.
The Fix is simple. Bigger Gun. Longer Range. lvl 1 = 1km, lvl 2, 2km. lvl 3, 3km. I like your idea with linking the weapons to the reactors level. Smaller reactor gives a smaller range on the weapon you fire. You can have a level 7 weapon with a level 3 reactor on the ship. The level 3 reactor can only generate the charge to fire the weapon at a 3km distance. Big gun, small range for the inferno / ion. A capitol ship will have longer range on the same level of weapon because its reactor can give more charge to propel the firepower farther and faster. Every gun can switch between Armor Penetration or Flack Explosive. Big Gun vs Small Fighter = Big Gun using Big Flack Explosive so that it always hits the fighter at longer ranges. By the time the Fighter Manuvers the shot. The shot does splash damage. The Fighter must then Get Outside the range of the larger guns. The Fighter will always be inside the range of the larger guns because its guns are always smaller.
It would take an actual book to go into depth and give a proper opinion so instead, im just looking at my friends list and it went from around 10-20 ppl online at the beginning of 3.23 daily to 0 or maybe 1 at the beginning of 3.24. Was the game more fun/popular before 3.23/MM or was it more fun/popular afterwards. One thing that can't be debated is that ppl aren't playing.. The numbers are at their lowest in years and I think the flight model that ppl loved (because it was always something you could do.. so many ppl like just flying around without changing modes and having shields down and having crappy acceleration) is part of that reason.
I wont be happy until combat modes are at least 500 (and thats settling for less), and shields, guns, and countermasures can be used in nav mode (with slower regen modes for shields and guns). Ideally removing master modes because of its un-necessary complexities and better balancing things would be the way to go. Fight ranges and speeds can easily be closer and slower by manipulating how power works on ships, and the effective range of projectiles as well as the strength of those projectiles at set distances.
Tomato, it felt like you came to this convo with your mind made up and kind of disengaged. I urge you to really disengage from all the people with weirdly visceral anti-MM hate comments, because you seem not to be engaging well with the valid concerns and the sheer number of changes to fifferent systems that MM brought. I am not a fan of MM, both in terms of the dramatic shift of flight model, nor the (to me) nonsensicle changes to how ship hardware fundamentally works via mode shifting. I dont feel like my opinion is particularly charged, and i think my concerns are just as valid as my friends enjoyment of the changes. I want to hear the positives from you that make your experience different from mine, because i value that different perspective, but your comments felt totally dismissive or at least unengaged from the opposite side. I hope its just because you were real tired of the anti-mm spam, and that you come to future talks regarding MM more with an approach that allows comparison of affirmations and issues rather than dismissals. Sorry if its a bummer of a message, hope its not piling on too much. Dont let peoples hate in MM feel like hate directed at you just because you like it, its not worth tying ourselves into any particular model of this game to the point where we cant hear each other. ❤
Im a long time backer, been playing since pre-PU. I'm not a fan of mastermodes for 2 main reasons... 1.) The jarring switch between modes. Pulling 90gs decelerating from nav would cause catastrophic damage to the human body. 2.) The speeds are too low for the accelerations we have. A large part of dogfighting is managing your energy state. 25gs of acceleration trivializes it with the low top speed we have and hitting the speed wall feels terrible. I think they could fix this with a more organic solution that has a far less jarring transition than a binary mode switch, however doing what A1 prescribes will help combat geometry within MM, which I will summarize... 1.) Lowering accelerations to previous flight model levels, or comparable. (Personally I think they were better when they were much lower in early 3.x patches, like 3.3) 2.) Increase SCM speed to 500ish (I would say for all ships personally, IMHO it shouldn'tbe ship dependent) 3.) Decrease afterburner top speed increase significantly so that it is only a small fraction of what it is currently proportional to non-boosted speeds. * This would remove the need to boost an entire fight * It would make maneuvering a larger component in combat. (not because you're dodging projectiles, that's arcadey, but are able to make effectively "getting into the kill zone" more difficult at higher energy states) I think in addition to that, we need the long delays back for switching to nav mode in small ships, like it was early on in evo testing (minus the mode switch lockout) Right now it's way too easy to nav out of a fight in smaller ships, which defeats one of the core complaints about the previous FM that MM was intended to address. There is no consequences to engagment as It's too damn easy to escape a dogfight unless theres quantum interdiction present. It should take 10 seconds or more to switch to NAV mode, but the switch to nav mode should be a cancelable action. Switching from NAV to SCM should be instant, but you should have to rely upon your thrusters to slow down and merge. Interceptors will need special consideration so they're still viable, but they cannot maintain both an acceleration and top speed advantage like they have today. If they have a significant top speed advantage over other ship classes they MUST have slower accelerations than other fighters so they're not able to completely dictate the engagement. Personally I would also like to see a curve in acceleration rather than linear. The closer you are to your top speed the less you accelerate.
Have to admit ... I got bored real quick with the new flight model. I miss the old days (not even the one before MM, before that). I like the cargo systems - but I find actually flying my cargo ships boring. *sigh*
Most of these discussions seem to ignore the negative impact on Star Citizen's barrier to entry, focusing only, or mostly, on (PvP) combat, and the balance thereof. I don't necessarily care about either (if I get into PvP it's generally because that choice was made for me) if if already feels I need a Phd just to get around, or fight some entry-level NPCs. Master Modes frontloads all of the complexity by requiring players to not only learn a bunch of new controls (on top of the ones they already had to learn for the 3.22 model), but additionally effectively learn multiple ships at once (since ships behave vastly different in differing modes) on top of systems being (un)available depending on which mode they're in. The majority of the difficulty in 3.22's flight model was in the mechanics of flight, learning the ships, and their acceleration patterns. In MM it's in the controls, and remembering which things do what, and when. Feels like you need a flow-chart to fly in MM. As someone not coming from a sim background, unlike, at least so it feels like, everyone else in these discussions (including the devs), Master Modes feels excessively convoluted when compared to the beautiful simplicity of the 3.22 model. Since getting into SC I've dabbled in some of the "finished" space sims around, and I've always come back to this alpha, oftentimes barely functional, game because it didn't present me with the "EVE cliffside"-learning curve for its basic mechanics. SC flight was relatively easy to learn, and relatively easy to pick back up after long breaks. Unlike, for example, Elite's which I just didn't go back to after a month long break and realizing I didn't remember how to fly at all, so I'd have to climb that learning-cliff all over again. I'm sure the 3.22 model had its issues, but based on following these discussions I've come to believe many, if not most, weren't even issues with the model, necessarily, but with the tuning, or with CIG not delivering systems that are essential for the balance they say they want (like armour, or the turret changes that would've worked just as well in 3.22 as far as I can tell)
Yeah it's annoying that MM is being treated like a silver bullet when its barely fixed anything yet. There were solutions that could have been tried in the previous flight model instead
Awesome again tomato and avenger. Made sense in terms of fixing for long term and not just one aspect. Gameplay is very important for SC to me. And it does affect all ships.
The best Halo analogy would be... what if the developers said you guys are running away too fast? Let's just make everyone walk instead of running. This way everyone can see the details of your gun and outfit and enjoy shield Bubbles go down. This will lower the skill ceiling and make combat more accessible to everyone.😅
CIG’s spastic development mentality gives me no reason to trust them to finish MM or make it work as they intend. MM isn’t the main issue here for me, it’s a decade of ADHD development that leaves me doubting their capacity to fully realize anything.
What I don’t care for i sleep having another adult tell why I can’t possibly be having fun while playing SC with MM. He comes across like the SC players I block because they constantly complain about everything in the game and get upset when people don’t agree. Maybe that’s not entirely true about him but that how it comes across. Tomato making a statement and then having him condescending explain why he’s right is just something I have never cared for. We all play games for different reasons and it’s obvious that his preferred play mode has been disrupted and now he feels the need to explain to other why the whole project of SC is terrible sorry but I can’t get behind that. If I want someone to call me stupid because I took their toy away I’ll just go play with my 2 year old. Great job tomato keep being us these chats. I don’t agree with the guest on much but great conversations require different perspectives!
@@quincybelk6267 "What I don’t care for i sleep having another adult tell why I can’t possibly be having fun while playing SC with MM. He comes across like the SC players I block because they constantly complain about everything in the game and get upset when people don’t agree. Maybe that’s not entirely true about him but that how it comes across. Tomato making a statement and then having him condescending explain why he’s right is just something I have never cared for. We all play games for different reasons and it’s obvious that his preferred play mode has been disrupted and now he feels the need to explain to other why the whole project of SC is terrible sorry but I can’t get behind that. If I want someone to call me stupid because I took their toy away I’ll just go play with my 2 year old. Great job tomato keep being us these chats. I don’t agree with the guest on much but great conversations require different perspectives!" This point.
@@latjolajban81 That's multiple points. I will summerize these then. I didn't care for the manner in which he responded to Tomato around the 20-minute mark when a point was made about why some in the community are happy with MM. In my opinion, Avenger was condescending in his response. I even rewatched it to ensure I felt good about that position I do. These are my options based on my interactions with Avengers materials, so my perceptions will be difficult to "prove" to another. The final point I made about his gameplay loop being disrupted is based on his words, not mine, that while he might enjoy some of the other styles of play, dogfighting is his primary loop. He defended his position on this fine. He was articulate when discussing the issues he had with the way MM has changed, but he, on multiple occasions, projected a bit onto the community that since these changes were made, the community felt betrayed. This isn't entirely wrong. I just don't care for someone disliking something and then projecting that onto the community as a whole or on a project. It's broad strokes that are not only difficult to prove, I would argue, but it's nearly impossible. So, I arrived at my conclusion by taking the interview piece by piece contextualizing what was being said, and not looking to generalize. If that didn't come across in the initial post, I apologize for that. I'll try to be more clear going forward. I'll finish by restating these are just my opinions of the interview and discussion and mine alone, I enjoy these discussions; I just don't care for the projected attitude that since something is bad for me, it's bad for all.
All a really good discussion on everything that's been cooking in my head since 3.23. But yes, we need to make this more clear: *"Master Modes," as a topic itself, is not the actual problem here.* The flight model needs fundamental adjustments to make all of the ships viable and playable. The geometry problems, the weapon speeds and balance, the velocity caps and thruster behaviors, they all need adjustments and revisions to make this work. The mode switching in itself between NAV and SCM has its own problems, and I still do not like the way it functions, but that is an entirely separate subject from making the flight model feel fun to fly with.
I stopped playing because of master modes. We have been here before, and the community made it clear that we don't want mode switching in the game. Why are we back at this point again? I want to love Star Citizen, but after sinking in over 1000 hours in the previous flight model and comparing it to master modes is such a tragic thing. Flying in space with my very powerful spaceship went from thrilling, even just flying around idly, to feeling slow, sluggish and only slightly similar for 5 seconds when I have boost available. It's just not exciting flying the spaceship anymore.
Master Modes sadly diminished all the fun of flying for me. Exploration used to be the main reason i logged in; now the same just doesn't feel good whatsoever. Return to 3.22 : )
Ty for shedding more light on this issue. @Space Tomato I think you said it perfectly, Cargo " I think they have hit something Worth some thing!" You love the full aspect of Loading cargo and all that, perfect. SO now you understand what it would be like to lose that and only get the old way back.... It would be less fun to lose the Scope and depth of the current cargo we have now right. So thats How i feel about the flight model. To lose the depth and the scope to appease the average player , who will only pvp if they are forced into it. I think the same can be said about the current cargo System we have now. CIG is forgetting the number one Rule FUN.... Ship combat is not fun, its both PVP and PVE ,,, Just bad.... bored....Cargo as it stands now sucks.... Took FOREVER TO MOVE gear from starter city to station. Almost a full 7 hours.... This is not fun.... CIG has all this backward LUL.... Dumbed down FM , Went full Sim on Cargo system.... Number one rule is fun..... and i have stopped playing since 3.23, Ship combat is left in a state of crap, Cargo is great at first,,,, but then Reality Sinks in........ Took a full day just to move my gear from starting city... I encourage every one to step back and Really ask you IS this game going to be fun? Im not Having fun... all the OG backers and vets are not playing at all.... I find my self a 12 Year backer and player not logging in at all.... Rather Go play NO mans Sky,,,, FYI i said id never play NMS and here i am..... LUL GOod Video... great Stream... Im worried about the project ... love and vibes
Master modes strikes me as they are trying to achieve equality of outcome meaning everyone gets a kill rather than equal opportunity put in the effort and reap the rewards.
I'm not a PvP player, but right now, the experience of flying and fighting is extremely unfun. In its current state, you just aim at opponents, and the player with the better equipment usually wins. Both PvP and PvE are crucial for a game's longevity, with PvP being especially vital. After reaching endgame content, players often turn to PvP because it offers a dynamic experience with real players. Games like Counter-Strike, PUBG, Battlefield, and Call of Duty are popular because they excel in PvP, while many MMOs lose player interest once endgame content is exhausted, primarily due to lacking engaging PvP. Star Citizen's PvP used to be complex and required hundreds of hours to master, but the developers at CIG have made it more accessible by simply nerfing it, which is not the right approach. Instead, they should focus on adding tutorials and incentives to encourage players to engage in PvP. As players complete all other aspects of the game, they naturally gravitate towards PvP. For example, even though I'm not a PvP enthusiast, I planned to dive into it extensively once I had tried everything else and the game became more stable and feature-complete.
He needs to let the devs build the damn space game. "Master Modes is just going downhill!" It's been basically 1 patch, my guy 🤦🏿♂️and he's being so melodramatic about it. He plays to emotion, and that's like playing with fire. 🤷🏿♂️
This was a great discussion. I agree with most of Avenger Ones points. It is true, that most issues with the flight model can be fixed within MM. But they could also have been fixed within the "old" flight model. As a mostly solo player, I have many issues with the artificial speed gaps introduced by MM. The constant switching between modes gets old really fast and doesn't feel as dynamic as smoothly setting the speed limiter. As a physicist I also have a huge problem with the rates of accelerations, our ships can pull. It should not be possible to reach max speed in 2 seconds (at least not without killing the pilot). If we assume that a human body can typically withstand about 6g, it would take about 4 seconds to accelerate to 240 m/s safely. Stopping from high velocity should take much longer than accelerating, unless I rotate the ship by 180 to brake with the rear engine. No way those tiny maneuvering thrusters can pull 6g of deceleration. I really don't think it is a good sign, that CIG has still not figured this stuff out after 13 years.
If you could get, say, BuzzCutPsycho on, either with A1 or on his own, to balance this a tad bit more, that would be interesting af 👀 Admittedly, you'd have to get Buzz to chill on the insults. 😅 [EDIT: After watching this, I've decided I'm definitely not watching anymore MM discussions with JUST A1. There's disproportionately too much A1 content on the channel in this regard. I suggest finding someone ELSE to consult with about this shit so you're not constantly just giving only A1 the podium. Very much needs balance.]
Well if he didn't have a proven history of being a racist pos, his interview on the launch sequence podcast might not have been deleted hours after its release. Doubtful that we'll see him here in the future...
Was about to write a post about problems with MM and realized I just don't care anymore. It's ruined the game so much I'm very near to selling my account that I've held on to since the kickstarter. Respect A1 trying to educate about the geometry problems and the correct fixes. Just don't feel like the devs are listening or even trying to got that direction anymore.
I didn’t understand why people thought MM was a good idea when it was revealed, we were sold a sim, built that (as close as possible) then develop flight systems to make the experience as fun, immersive, and robust as possible across all types of ships and encounter types.
@21:00 So after taking in 12x the money they swore they needed to do everything you're now OK with them not giving us what they sold so they can get that up to what? 20x before they pivot to making a cooking game or whatever they need to get it up to 25x?
Welp..... time for pitchforks and popcorn. My favourite combination. Let the haters hate, the white knights shine and the bad takes begin. You know its a spicy one when the hate comments start minutes after the vid is posted 😅. It's all content.
12 years in, FM is still far from a close to final implementation and somehow it is not even apriority according to Yogi's post. Enough said, everything else is cope.
Here's a problem. Master Modes and CIG are pushing a flight engine to appeal to a wider audience.... Screw that.... WE already paid for the game. They need to be making it to appeal to what sold us on the project. What convinced US to finance it... Not NEW players....
exactly this... they have to follow what was promissed and not changing game mechanics in it's core not to make it better but to appeal to more players who are not even into this type of game... that's wrong move and shady as F... bottom line focusing on new players is valid strategy but it have to be in a way where they can explore game in fun ways like gunner on a multicrew ship, as a pizza delivery guy or helping someone to load cargo with handheld beam, slow steps, slowly learning exploring the game, that's how you attract new players.. and not by dumbing down fly model
Space tomato looked not amused during most of this, that stare down 😂 I think he has some points but over all doesn't understand that the zoomies isn't fun gameplay for most people especially new players. Flight model will need work but after all ship systems are in. It's only way to truly balance and time is money. Seems simple to me
it'S an elephant that gonna give birth to a mouse maybe instead of spending money on real estate and architecure design for their office... they would spend it to actually finish one thing and not retouch it until the game is finished... then I would be more likely to give more funding....
My problem with the old flight system was the smaller the ship the more attributes it had. They had the speed, they had the yaw and pitch all in there favour and this is just not realistic and we saw Avenger One destroying Ships that were of a heavier design and built to fight and this can and should not happen. The old British aircraft, the Tornado, one of its variants was as an interceptor which meant it could fly in straight line really fast to catch up to and intercept the target. If that target was another fighter like the Mig 29 then the Tornado has no hope in hell of defeating that because it had no turn rate to be able to get behind and then shoot the Mig down. That is not what we were seeing here, we were seeing the interceptors and the light fighters just dominate everything by having the ability to pull massive g's in every direction and weapon sizes that are too big for that light class of ship. The result was that Avenger One and the other PVP'ers were able to dominate everyone else in the game including Multicrew ships and the only people enjoying PVP were the PVP'ers and this was reflected in the amount of people playing AC. Everyone else was cannon fodder for them and they would go out of their way to take down a Mole or C2. Sorry 2% ers but us 98% did not find that fun either. Then you heard the PVP'ers whining because non PVP players were running away and I was one of them as an industrialist. Possible solution: base weapon range on the size of weapon and power on the size of the powerplant with a percentage bonus for multicrew ships. We should be seeing interceptors and light fighters get destroyed by Multicrew ships pretty easily to be honest and either overwhelming numbers or a more appropriate class ship/s is what is required to bring the multicrew ships down.
dude you take this to personallly i think, is not pvper versus pve or whatever, is the way game work, i do mainly pve and i agree with a1, i don't want to fall into one off his trap in game but that not the same point , we just want that if the connie's crew is smart enought s they shrade a part an arrow coming around them. and u proposal is legit and quiet close that what A1 propose and aim too, cheers
@@Leujee1789 As i was typing the comment I remembered all the times I could not get out of Port Olisar becasue it was constantly being blockaded by PVP'ers. I wanted to play the game as a miner or selling cargo and I just could not play for a whole day or two because i literally could not get off the pad. So, yes you are right, i did make it too personal and thankyou for pointing that out. Will try to be better next time.
To tomato's point on it being embarrassing for CIG to scrap the master modes. I think it would be the opposite, in the current gaming climate, for a developer to actually listen to criticism, admit they went the wrong direction, and make changes, would be taken very well.
"Flight" feels awful. It just feels like hovering and aiming. It doesn't feel like flying. Switching back and forth through modes is clunky. Combat is terrible because it's just aim and shoot. Flying skills barely matter anymore.
I've had zero memorable fights since master modes. It's a fleet engagement focussed model with huge DPS and teaming issues which hasn't taken the other 95% of flight experience into account. I've gone from willing to make it work - to hardly playing. It's the single biggest mistake this game has made (from hundreds) in 12 years. What may work for SQ42 does not work in an MMO expecting thousands of hours of gameplay.
Feel free to disagree and criticize. But do not leave insults in the comments section please. Thank you.
I did my best, but that dudes tone is so condescending it does not bring out the best in me. I only called him a man-baby, thats pretty chill.
You made good points with maelstrom, components, etc. and he just ignored them. The fighters can't shoot from farther to the side of the barn, because the barn doesn't care, only the tiny components inside, and those would have the same relative speed than a tiny ship.
@XMathiasxX I genuinely don't want too come off this way, like, for real
@@Avenger__One I apologize, I dont agree with you in some areas but I could be nicer.
@@XMathiasxX Yeah. He seems a bit desperate to be "right" and therfor gives somewhat weird answers. For example at 59:40 where Tomato talked about new stuff never tested before.
Noone knows how all this will come together and here he says that "whatever" they do, its not goona work.
Multicrew can easily be fixed by giving anti-fighter turrets more range and velocity than the fighter equivalent weapons so they can actually hit the smaller targets. Base it off the powerplant size. The larger the power plant, the more energy it can push through the turret weapons, and the longer the range.
For example using arbitrary numbers, turrets are given a base 25% increased range/velocity, S2 power plant gives an additive 25% range and velocity. S3 gives an additive 50% extra range/velocity. So in a carrack with an S3 power supply the turrets will have a 75% longer range and velocity than the normal S4 weapon it holds.
Once you have the effective ranges dialed in so that fighters can't abuse their small size and apply damage with zero threat, you can then start adjusting the turret tracking to suit.
Correct
You are underestimating the problem by a lot. If they do what you say, they need a connie be able to fire weapons at 12500 m/s in order to fire at a hornet in equal conditions; with that projectile speed, the distance at which the hornet can't dodge the shots will be the same at which the andromeda can't dodge the hornet's shots when using a 1600m/s weapon like a ballistic gatling. That's a +681% increase. And that only brings the connie in equal conditions, but remember the connie is a multicrew ship, so let's have as many hornets as crewmen in the connie. I don't know if a connie should be in equal conditions like that though since it's not a combat ship, but it's the same for a Hammerhead, for instance, maybe even more of an increase.
It's too much of an increase and too arbitrary. Maybe adding special S5 and above weapons that are made for dealing specifically with fighters (like flak, radar rounds or saturation weapons) would be a good idea but I'm not sure that allows for a lot of skill expression... Maybe with hacking or countermeasures, if a ship can use noise or hacking to make the radar weapons be unreliable for 10 seconds and an inferno or an eclipse can get close enough to make an effective attack in that time window, that would be nice team play. But it's not very good if that's the only solution... They really have to think out of the box with this one. Did A1 suggest any solutions?
Edit: Ah sorry that's kinda what A1 suggests in the video. I think only changing projectile speed based on power plant size is not enough if you're not going to do this drastic speed increases, but adding different types of weapons that can only be used on S5 and above hardpoints is a way to add weapons that are effective for multicrew ships while preventing small ships from using them. Then you can tie the speed of those weapons to power plant size and weapon size and you extend their usefulness to many ship sizes.
I typed this before I got to that part in the podcast. I'm in agreement with A1.
@@PolBlanesCebrian A connie andromeda is 100% a combat ship, what are you talking about? Its literally a gun ship. Just cuz it has 4 beds and a cargo bay doesnt mean it doesnt also have 8 REALLY big guns and absolutely massive shields as well as a pocket fighter. A fully crewed connie is like two gunners, a fighter pilot, a copilot, and a pilot. A fully crewed connie is 2 ships, not one, and its got effectively 4 vectors of attack. Its primary role is supposed to be combat, your making it sound like a Taurus or Aquila.
4 fighters SHOULD be a tilted slightly against the connies favor, and 3 fighters should be more in line with the connie. Anything less is NOT good odds.
Making the airspace around the connie more dangerous for fighters is one way to do it, but improving its armor, making soft deathing it harder, having an engineer on board to improve longevity, and above all... making it ever so slightly more agile, so its not just a fat lazy duck in a pond of winged sharks would be dimes making dollars.
that doesn't work, you'd be trying to hit a pixel at 3km moving across the screen arc at a much faster velocity and if they get closer you can forget it, the question is literally do you want turrets to be viable or not and if you think ship component targetting is viable above 800m, prove it, go film yourself shearing wings off at 3km repetitively in war thunder, it doesn't work and even if you do land a shot the fighter will just disengage.
Its engaging to see two people debate over a topic rather than each just agreeing with the other or vice versa yelling that each is wrong. This episode had me so focused on it that I had to put my work down cause I was so into it. Great job Tomato and Avenger
Thank you ❤
Thanks, mate!
I’m not a PVP player, I always enjoyed flying around in SC because of that sense of freedom it used to have. What I don’t like about master modes is how the velocity changes with boost or how I have drag in space when I let it go or when I change directions. Boost should affect acceleration, not speed. Not to mention the handbrake when swapping modes, you can pool 70Gs out of nowhere. It breaks the immersion. Also, ships in atmo feel sluggish as hell since the total thrust output is linear, whenever you have to compensate for the planet gravity you lose maneuverability to try to land. There are other things too, like all the ships feel the same since they don’t account for the ship mass or aerodynamics anymore. Ships that used to be nimble now fly like a caterpillar.
Use NAV, ask CIG to give us shields in NAV, at least partially. Only SCM has lower speeds, and this is meant for combat. Speeds and accel are the same as before in NAV.
Some ships that were too nimble have been adjusted, example the Hercules ships. The Redeemer was an exception, being a medium size, not very big, that nonetheless was punished with super low agility because gameplay. Now this is being corrected by nerfing those turrets and returning the Redeemer to its original role, but hey new drama because we get attached to what is a temporary state, unfortunatly.
You re right about the crazy 70G brake when switching from NAV to SCM. But solution is not as easy as it seems, when you apply logic and take gameplay restrictions into account (which is why MM exists in the first place, and why ED did a similar thing many years ago already, maybe these devs have a point).
Turning off Coupled Mode will eliminate the "drag". The reason you slow down when in coupled mode is that your thrusters bring you to a stop. If decoupled, you will continue traveling in the same direction at the same speed.
The handbrake is explained that the Q-drive is what slows the ship down since the Q-drive is what gives them the ability to accelerate further which is why it needs to be activated in order to boost past SCM limits. The stop is fun in team fights since you can drop in on opponents and get straight to the fight. In the previous model you flew at max speed and had to flip and burn, mess that up be even a little and you ended up zooming past which meant you were worthless in a team fight. Current system now encourages more teamplay since it takes away the higher skill check required to dive in on opponents during a team fight.
@@Brigadier_Beau no, I’m not talking about coupled mode. In decoupled, use boost to get to top speed, and then rotate your ship around. The speed is not the same in every direction.
@@WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot_YTYes but That's just obscenely mentally challenged, a space ship with 900+ years in the future can't go over 400m/s is just a bad gameplay mechanic, let alone immersion and everything else.
Space combat newbie here (PvE only) - Master Modes has just raised the skill floor immensely for me. It's so confusing managing modes and submodes. It took me 15 minutes to even know what questions to ask global chat about what was happening. "Why is my ship slow? Why is fast now? Where are my shields? Why can't I fire my gun? What's master modes? What is the keybind? What's a submode? How do these modes layer?"
All my pop-culture intuitions are gone. I now have no reference point for how space combat works in SC.
I don't know what the play is when I want to flee (nav mode means taking more damage than I can afford, shield mode means never outrunning them while taking attrition fire). Engagements are becoming even longer range because it's harder to dodge at range.
I feel crazy when people are saying it's more approachable, I'm having more trouble than I ever have. At least before MM I enjoyed the process of being bad. Now I'm just bad while unable to have fun.
Thanks for the vid SpaceTomato!
Raising the skill floor means made things easier for the new player. But that doesn't sound like what you experienced.
It sounds what you mean is the skill floor is gone, and it's a confusing mess for someone that only has space flight references from shows like Battlestar Galactica, Star Trek, The Expanse and the like.
@@nuanil Well, raising (the skill hurdle) of the floor (bare minimum) increases the barrier to entry, you've got it a little backward. Don't worry I was too until I looked it up.
The skill floor isn't gone. It just takes much longer to get acquainted with the bare minimum of effectiveness. I want to be fair to CIG. They didn't destroy the game, but Master Modes is a step in the wrong direction for me as a newbie. I feel like so many people who are familiar with space combat are saying (on my behalf) that it's easier to get into the space combat post-MM for newbies, but I'm an actual newbie to space combat and it's been exactly the opposite experience for me. It's not impossible, I'm still able to complete PvE missions, but I'm also dying way more, and to stupid stuff like forgetting to switch modes, or not knowing how to flee anymore.
@@NoahDiesSlowly I was being hyperbolic by saying it's gone. When it sounded like for you the floor was so low it might as well be gone. Raising the skill floor means making things easier, as in "you can only be this bad at this", as it's reducing or eliminating opportunities to make mistakes either through engineered or administrative controls/solutions (good ol' OSHA HSE...). Raising the skill floor is handholding a new player through the experience. And lowering the skill ceiling reduces the maximum effect skill can have on the game. You raise the floor and lower the ceiling to normalize skill levels... which is fine for some games, but we were sold a hyper immersive simulation, and games with low skill ceilings rarely last long.
The best example for this is before we had an optional SCM limiter, that you could adjust on the fly, and it was a guide to help keep you inside the speed envelope. This was an engineered administrative control to make throttle management easier for various reasons such as mouse/keyboard pilots that don't have analogue controls, players that are learning maneuvering and such. CIG just got upset that most of us turned off because we outgrew the need for it, and so in order to reduce the skill ceiling they created mastermodes that forced us all to utilize the SCM limiter during combat, and forgot that any part of the game existed outside combat.
@@nuanil HOSA user here...
I took FULL advantage of both speed and acceleration limiters BEFORE MM.
I don't need to now.
@@lordfraybin And that's part of my point, meanwhile I turned them them completely off because they annoyed me, but I'm a HOTAS pilot and never needed them to stay inside SCM speeds, and only ever used them to intentionally tame my accelerations for fine detail work.
Master Modes as an OPTINAL mechanic is a fantastic idea to help new players tame their rides.... the problem comes in forcing those of us skilled enough for Formula 1 on a closed track to be restricted to rush hour traffic.
When Master Modes was first introduced, no one raised objections to its testing. In fact, many of us were eager to explore a new flight model that was said to address issues with the previous one. However, after spending countless hours, days, and months playing SC with Master Modes, I must say that I never liked it from the start. Regardless of any future adjustments CIG might make to Master Modes, the flight model remains the only aspect that truly matters to me in this game. Many players who, like me, have invested both time and money into this game, share my dissatisfaction with Master Modes. Ultimately, the flight geometry in Master Modes doesn't make sense and is not enjoyable. There are numerous videos and podcasts that thoroughly address this issue, and ignoring them would be unwise.
I genuinly agree to that statement
It's a game about space ships. The flight model is quite possibly the most important thing. If it feels artificial and faked it takes so much away from the ship part.
This. Flight model matters for everyone, a fighter, a racer, a trader, etc.
yeah. its a game. not real life. it feels fun. whats the problem?
@@Deceaser It's not fun, but with the lack of language skills you've been displaying in being able to read the words others type, I can understand how you would be unable to understand that others aren't finding it fun.
@@nuanil right. you have no actual argument so straight to unprovoked ad hominem. go learn jiu jitsu and build some confidence or something ffs...
@@Deceaser I have given several detailed explanations at various spots in this comments section and others.
But if you need it here? Sure. The only thing MM does is provide training wheels via hard limiters that make no sense. If we were roelpaying it as computer aided controls to keep the ship within an envelope fine, but then those limiters should disappear if I go decoupled.
It also defaults SCM speeds even when in NAV mode and exiting quantum jump, and resets all the limiters. If I'm exitign Quantum I have to have been in NAV mode, and therefore should be exiting at NAV speeds with NAV limiters.
Also because you can't do anything BUT fly in it, you are constantly changing modes back and forth, and inevitably essentially loosing any and all smooth transitions from slow to high speeds while doing ANY activity in game that doesn't. Not to mention the G forces experienced when braking from 1200m/s to 150m/s would liquify your internal organs, all of it takes you out of the game, and any semblance of suspension of disbelief reminding you that you are in fact playing an arcade game, when we were promised a near Newtonian space flight simulation, where everything would react that way you would EXPECT it to react in reality.
The letter from that Chairman is still up stating this:
"1. Because we were planning on modeling and simulating spaceships with a fidelity that hadn’t been seen before I felt we needed a simulation that would let the player have different flight behavior if a thruster is damaged, a wing is blown off or a pilot overloads his ship with weapons and ammunition? I wanted a system that could feel distinct for a huge variety of ships, with wildly different sizes and roles because in Star Citizen you can go from a single seater ship 15 meters in length to a huge capital ship over 1km in size crewed by many players. I wanted these ships to come with their own identity and feel much like similar sized cars, even if equivalent in mass can feel radically different. I wanted ships to have their own personality - not just a slower of faster version of the base ship.
2. The second is that Star Citizen will have a significant amount of player vs. player combat. I don’t know how many people played Wing Commander Armada (the first Wing Commander game to feature multiplayer) but it wasn’t that much fun in battle mode (the head to head mode). When you design a single player game you can deliberately dumb down the AI to allow the player to get on the tail and shoot down multiple enemies, which gives the player a sense of achievement. There’s nothing more fun than single handily clearing a wave of 10 enemy Kilrathi fighters. But let’s be honest, in single player games the ability for the player to gun down waves of enemies has less to do with the skill of the player because the player is usually overpowered in respect to the base enemies he will fight. You can’t do this in player vs player, and it’s likely that multiple players will have the same ship. Without a sophisticated simulation and flight model, with lots of options for a pilot to fluidly try different tactics to get the upper hand the battles can end up as a frustrating stalemate when both pilots have the same ship as no one can get on the other’s tail because you don’t have the same forces that affect air combat (namely gravity and air resistance) to bleed energy from the maneuvers."
This is what we are holding CIG to, because it is what they sold us, and continually promised us.
The problem is lack of trust. People fear MM won't get the changes they want because they don't trust CIG to put player wants above new player sales.
Ok you make a point, it is undeniable that often crosses my mind
Great point. Thanks!
N ewplayer sales depend most on the game being actually fun though, so I do hope they'll make the changes to keep the game fun.
@@SpaceTomatoToo And I've been talking with a few new players whom are confused AF about mastermodes, and even I've had more than a few times wondering why the f%*& can't I operate my tractor beam turret while landed on a pad, all because I'm in nav mode.
@@SpaceTomatoToo I wouldnt respond to most these people bro, they already know the answer, I dunno why they feel the need to cry out over stuff they shouldnt be worried about, attention I assume, or to get get pats on the back from other mongos.
I liked the driftier flight model in the early 3.x patches, manuvering took thought. 2.6 was hummingbirds in space, nose to nose circle strafe.
Yes, they should have focused on weapon and armour / shield balance, as well as individual ship flight performance characteristics, instead of just destroying the fun of their flight model altogether.
3.0 was nose to nose circle strafing
I think a lot of people think MM and the flight model are the same thing since they came in/changed at the same time. While MM does affect the flight model(limiting speeds) its the flight model most people have issues with even though they say MM. I for one agree with AVG1 though im not a PVPer. I put a lot of time in to learning how to fly in every other flight model we've had.
The flight model is something that affects everyone if you do ship combat or not. But it mostly affect ship combat and racing. You dont want FPS guys to designing mining or salvaging systems, just like you dont want PVPers designing how mining or salvaging should work. While their feedback is welcomed they might not fully understand how everything actually works.
Having to actually work for something is where the real fun is. Most of us dont want the insta gratification of being good. You want a gradual skill increase over time so it feels rewarding for having learnt something. And the current flight model just clips the skill so hard its not fun for those people who are decent at the game. But you also need to make it accessible to new players. Which the old system didnt do but it also didnt provided a way to learn it either.
The last flight model wasnt perfect but it did provide almost everything MM "wanted" . Most of my battles(99%PVE 1% PVP) took place within 100-200m, it was very cinematic but it took many hours of practice to get there. Now with everything as it is now you have to stay far away unless you can out tank the other ships. And for myself just isnt fun compared to want we used to have.
The biggest issue I have is with CIG saying this is the way we always wanted it. IF that was so then why hasn't the game been designed that way from the start. You put out a product for the last 10 years mostly one way then change it to something else, Of course your going to have people not like the change and from those people a lot have stopped putting money into the game as we have felt that it was our only way to tell CIG that something needs to change.
I didn't like the previous flight model, my opponent could just boost away and recharge shields and that's it, I did it my self, after some time it was boring to fight
@@morganlefay-k4cI think we should compromise and just remove the speed cap between SCM and afterburner. Afterburner will just make you accelerate faster and your maximum speed for both will be around 400 - 500 m/s which is the speed that feels perfect at least for me
@@morganlefay-k4c That just means you have to boot and chase. And it SHOULD BE HARD to kill people that you just randomly run across.
@@feariex I aggre, I to don't understand why they did it in this way with boosting past scm limit and then a magic drag is stopping you. Well we need to wait how they will improve the MM in 4.0
The problem is that artificial speed limits in space are fake and arcade like. This is the opposite of SIM. The tri-cording advantage could have been fixed by lowering the threshold for the G-force induced blackout mechanic. This allows for higher velocities for straight flight and lower for turning. The higher the rate of change in direction, the higher the G-force. This forces the pilot to slow down to dogfight without having an artificial speed limit. Counter to intuition this reduces jousting as high velocity passes with 180 degree turn around leaves you unconscious if done to fast. Otherwise you are left a flat sitting target. If you combine this with a range/velocity/accuracy balanced to weapon size. Small weapon size have an effective short range. Dog fighting small ships will naturally be closer together. This allows for a rich space flight SIM that is fun for everyone and allows for many different strategies for all classes of ships. MM for navigation mode to engage quantum drive makes sense then.
100% agreee duuuude
@@Leujee1789 I don't think they are listening.
Yep. Assuming all vector thrusting, tri-chording can simply be fixed by making the fly-by-wire system to point available maneuver thrusters also to the correct direction.
@@RedHornSSS I believe that all the old mechanics are still in place but have artificial limits. These limits can be removed or reduced in values in combination with lowering the G-force blackout threshold values. It could be implemented in stages until they are happy with the result in pilot behaviour and over all feel.
This. I've always wondered why people who claim to want a space sim never question the speed limits
1:17:50 Yeah, as Kenan said regarding the cargo changes, CIG replaced a temporary system with the long-intended one. It wasn't a "mistake". As for why it took so long to implement, it required PES - which was basically "rocket science" - and has to be compatible with Server Meshing.
There are people who enjoy things you don't, and that's valid. "The community" isn't a hivemind. 🤷🏿♂️
I haven't spent a lot of time with Master Modes yet, but I've heard a lot of folks disliking it. It's a bit refreshing to learn that the issue isn't entirely with the Flight System & more about balancing. I would HATE for them to sink years creating a new flight model again.
They could go back to what 3.22 had and tweak it that was difficult but genuinely fun.
honestly i think the bigget issue is that A1 has one way of thinking about and explain concepts and other people have a different way of lookign at and understanding concepts. We are also tryign to illustrate things in a third dimension with "time" and "Speed" as a derivided of time being the biggest issues we have, and thinking in "4 dimensions liek that" is thought.
when he's talking about the target pilot needing to be unpredictable and needing to change direction to evade, while the attacker is behled to where the ship can possibly go... this is basically trying to explain what quantum physics is with relative particle position and observer bias and blindspots... I think CGI would do well to have a summit w/ content creators of all types to talk about master modes and combat tuning and get a set of wordage ubequitously used across the game to reduce confusion
I agree but there is so much feed back on RUclips and Reddit already it’s the developers job to take the feed back and figure out how to translate it to what actually needs to be changed.
My problem with what you say here is that CiG should have a summit with "content creators". Why? They are just players like the rest of us and contrary to popular belief, don't have any more right to determine gameplay than the rest of us.
They need to have better communication with the "whole" player base. Many of the content creators, like Avenger, only care, regardless of what he says, about PvP and "excitement". He thinks, like the Warzone content creators, that constant action and high speed is what is fun. Compare that for instance with Arma style tactical play where slow and methodical is actual "simulation" style play.
I started playing in 3.19, I was in awe of how the ships felt. Now with master modes it feels so slow.. even racing ships feels slow what’s the point of racing without needing crazy reaction time like pod racing from Star Wars?
Why would you need shields either way on a racing ship? Just stick to nav mode when racing.
@@strife1431 (in the M50) nav mode still feels kinda slow. I need faster reflexes doing F1 racing in assetto corsa. Maybe I need to give it another try.
@@DIGITALSANDBOX as far as I know Nav mode unlocks the full speed of the ship they had before. So is not a MM problem then.
@@strife1431 really? Ok I’ll try it again.
@@strife1431 In case you smack into the greenery. And bird strikes....
As a connie pilot I feel his pain of challenging the smaller fighters in close quarters. The turrets turn and fire rates don’t seem designed to compete in that arena.
As well as weapon velocities since they can ALWAYS out range you as they have the same weapon velocity as you
Master modes made me mostly stop playing the game, and I'm not even a fighter. It makes flying a chore and it really kills my suspension of disbelief because it makes so many wierd stuff happen (like the stupid space braking and deceleration)...
Anyway, go back to the previous model, make a more realistic tri-cording, greatly reduce acceleration (ship feel like they weigh nothing) especially for the thrusters, increase max speed, increase the difference between weapon sizes and fix turret. A size 4 weapon should shred a Mustang in only a few shots. And make big ships be scary. They shouldn't be able to be destroyed by a single Mustang but a swarm of them and with BIG losses.
The problem, as A1 explained, stems from the ratio of the target ship's max speed vs its size and acceleration rate when compared to the projectile speed of the attacker's weapons.
There's always a range at which weapons will always hit the target no matter how they move. That range is the range at which a projectile will reach the target before it has time to change it's velocity enough so that the predicted position falls outside the ship completely.
S3 Ballistic gatlings have a speed of 1600 m/s. A hornet has a speed of 220 m/s (not sure but let's just say so). If the hornet had infinite acceleration and could instantly change direction and get to max speed, they could have a speed diferential of 440 m/s (220 to one side then 220 to the other side). At 1600 m, the pip will efectively move 440m instantly, at 800m it will move half as much, etc. If you're close enough that the pip moves less than the size of the ship, that's the distance at which your shots can't be dodged. If the hornet is moving up then down, it's cross section is 7m, that means in order to make your gatling undodgeable you have to be 25m away (that's if the hornet could instantly change speeds, the real distance is larger).
So let's do the same for the andromeda. Front cross section is 14m, max speed is 200m/s so the diferential is 400m/s. The distance at which it wouldn't be able to dodge anything is 50m, now take into account that larger ships are slower to accelerate and the difference becomes even larger.
If you take accelerations into account, the Hornet has 9Gs of maneuvering acceleration (according to some random website) which would mean it can change its speed by 88m/s in 1 second (the time it takes our projectiles to make 1600m), that's the diferential instead of 440. The distance at which it can't dodge is now shy of 100m. While the andromeda has an acceleration of 2.2G, giving a diferential of 21.5m/s which means it can't dodge anything shot at them from less than 1036m. It could use her main thrusters to get 4.5G, getting a diferential of 44m/s, but then it would have to expose its length cross section of 61m. If it did that, it wouldn't be able to dodge anything shot at them from less than 2218m.
Something like making larger ships impervious to small weapon damage and giving them specialized large weapons to deal with fighters would be the only thing that comes to mind, but that would just create a standoff zone and make fighters able to avoid larger ships while the larger ship can't chase. Meaning neither would kill the other. Increasing projectile speed based on power plant size would require very large speed differences (in this case, the andromeda would have to shoot projectiles 700% faster than the hornet in order to be in equal conditions, neither being able to dodge at 1000m), that can't be the only element in the solution.
tdlr: make scm speeds faster
Just increase turret weapon velocity. Make it three or four times higher than non turret weapons. The Constellation wouldn't be able to dodge a F7's fire, but it's not supposed to be able to. It's supposed to tank it. However the F7 is going to actually be at high risk of getting hit if it does that attack run alone. Due to the higher velocity of the defending hulk's guns and the HP disparity 1v1 the F7 would lose every time. Ideally you'd want the hp, dps and velocity disparity to be enough that the Constellation could take 2 f7 at once. Not kiting into 1v1 fights like fighters do in large battles but physically taking fire from two f7's at once and win provided the connie has manned turrets.
@@PolBlanesCebrian I think the idea of "dodging projectiles" is fallacious. In order to dodge projectiles, you either need unbelievably low projectile velocity or absurdly high thruster output. This makes the game feel "arcadey".
The objective is to make it so that in dogfighting, it is possible to evade and exit the "kill box," which is your opponents cone of fire, within their weapon's effective range.
With accelerations being so high, particularly rotation rate, and scm so low, it makes keeping nose on target far too easy, which devolves into a nose-to-nose circle strafe DPS race. The only evasive manuver you have that might be effective is to "push through" your opponent and drop chaff. Even then, they can often times react in time to stay within effective range.
Dogfighting is largely about managing energy states, and when you can pull 25gs of acceleration with a Vietnam era top speed, it makes changes in energy state trivial.
Also, you can't make large ships impervious to fighters otherwise you create a ship size treadmill where noone would ever fly anything smaller than a corsair. We had this back in the constant shield regen era, where the average player would solo fly a 600i as a way to participate in PVP because it made them impervious to all but balistic fighter builds.
@@HitmannDDD but we also have torps and missiles now to make sitting still and tanking riskier. It should take a small squadron to take down a large ship. Or they should have an Ion or Inferno or distortion weapons. In short small ships taking on large ships should require strategy and tactics - not an ace pilot dodging return fire. The bigger ship should win.
Nothing has changed in what you said except now the solo player flies a Corsair instead of a 600. The Corsair should be at risk from 2-3 medium fighters and at little risk from 2-3 light fighters. That's how it should be. The real balance is that flying a large ship solo in future trying to do PvP will be expensive. There will be engineering to deal with plus all costs for repair, rearming and refueling going up. I think you'll see less solo 600's in PvP and more of them running away at the first opportunity (I solo a 600 now and I avoid ship battles as much as possible)
@@essentialasa the difference is neither the corsair nor the 600i are impervious to fighter damage at this time. It's not the best tool for the job, but a fighter needs to be able to damage a large multicrew ship otherwise the fighter becomes irrelevant.
Multicrew ships should need to rely upon turrets or other fighters for defense against a fighter. If the fighter cannot bruise the large ship, it can just ignore the fighter and not even react to it's presence, let alone be forced to retreat by the fighter.
I think a lot of the building anger over MM and the flight model is yet again something half baked was implemented and instead of being left it it was served up and forgotten.
Devs pulled away and reduced in priority, the team has said multiple times they would work on x but don't have the staffing.
If they kept doing arena commander builds and testing up coming changes and complete variations I feel the community would be happier as there is tangible progress and data driven development.
Hell these component changes recently announced, why are these not in AC for the few months before it gets pushed to live?
I follow the game a long time and put money into it in some early state. I remember both Chris Roberts and the website talking a lot about the realism of the flight model in space and atmosphere for this game. I linked many times the original text:
"Star Citizen doesn’t do that. We model what would be needed on an actual spaceship, including correct application of thrust at the places where the thrusters are attached to the hull of the ship - in our model moment of inertia, mass changes and counter thrust are VERY necessary. Star Citizen’s physical simulation of spaceflight is based on what would actually happen in space."
So yes, we expect a realism in the flight model master modes does not give us. And that at least is why I'm angry. I play games since the 70s. I was working in game development as coder for some time. The max speed should not be the problem in today games. If they have old ways to check collisions, they should change it and not make the speed slower. And desync will still happen if you have strong thruster to change your direction fast. Has also nothing to do with the max speed.
I want the game as realistic and believable as possible. Patch 3.23 made everything flight combat to arcade mode. That's not what they promised.
CIG has a credibility problem. They keep saying we will fix this "later" this is just a tier 0 implementation. But then not come back and touch it. We were promised back in 3.14 when they flat lined devices and components that 3.15 and its sub patches would be the great device rework and rebalance. We are in 3.24 now and that still has not been done. They keep tweaking and nerfing ballistics without introducing armor. So once they finally put armor in, all the ballistics work will need to be tossed out and redone. This is over a year of wasted time and money only working a half loop.
CIG needs to start delivering on promises instead of spouting off more false misleading statements.
dont worry bro, its coming out in 2 more years!
Real.
Between 18 and 40, try `18 and 57
The whole range!
Understood ❤
What I do not understand is who CRoberts thinks will fund this project? The older, professional demographic was attracted to this project because of the depth and intelectual side of it, the lack of baked in skills and the time it requires to build up a good skillset to be good at your chosen profession. These older people are used to doing this every day in their own careers. Hence, they are attracted to it, and also, this is why they plopped loads of money into the project. This is not a 40 or 60 e game, many of us plopped much more. When they all of a sudden turned 180 and introduced MM, they alienated the backers who built and supported the game for a decade, in favour of simplified mechanics that appeal to younger players, who have less attention span, who do not care nor want to spend time to build skills, they just want to have fun, untill thr next shiny thing comes along. Battlefield players are different from fortnite players, specifically for this reason. This is the same as manual vs automatic cars. The younger population will not be retained for that long, nor do they have the funds nor interest in investing and buying ships long term. It might be a short-term cash grab, but long-term, removing the sense of challenge and then progress and satisfaction, the average younger player will lose interest, in playing as much as in investing. If CIG dumbs down every loop with simple mechanics, after one tries them a few times it is natural to seek a different stimulus if there is no mechanic built in to keep you interested in progressing. One ship can buy them a whole new game (experience), the while funding idea was based and built around long term planning, which is not a priority for the masses. Instead of building a universe where every proffession has depth of skill to keep you engaged, CIG is building multiple mediocre gameloops that will get old fast, MM has proven exactly that.
you were 40 when this started :D
Yeah man, dont dismiss us!
I can get behind the idea of "Make multi crew ships good" far more than just the general hate for MM.
If A1 is pushing the desire for Multi crew to actually be worthwhile and a true threat for fighters, then I am on board with actually agreeing with him.
I think most people are there though, and I even think CIG want that, but they are just leaving us hanging in the dark for too long with no updates, and I think that is what is frustrating people the most.
If I rock up in a redeemer (long live the king), the fighters in the area should flee in terror
Y'know they're about to hamstring the deemer right?
@@falcon758 They HAVEN'T "left us hanging in the dark" tho. Yogi has communicated PLENTY about further changes to come, which Since Tomato was referencing. A1 just didn't bother to directly address that, strangely.
If you mean that the changes haven't arrived yet, of course not. Major changes never come MID patch cycle. MM JUST arrived in 3.23. It doesn't actually make sense to expect more major changes until 4.0, which Space Tomato also politely pointed out.
I'm not a fan of MM or the changes, but not so much for the reasons that A1 stated, more just that it took a flight model that used to have a really fluid feel to it and had a lot of depth and nuance to learn and changed into something that's janky and dumbed down. I dislike the fundamental concept of the modes and the switching between them, and I would prefer to see it removed all together so we can go back to that previous fluid experience.
I think A1 is definitely right about the community and it's frustrations though. Whether it was originally intended or not, this game attracted an awful lot of people based on it's previous flight model. Those people are upset with the changes, and the only communication we've had from CIG on the topic is a couple of posts on Spectrum from Yogi and since ISC video where they just repeatedly state that they're happy with the changes. And before we were told that changes would come with 3.24 and big changes would come with 4.0, but now we're being told that those changes aren't coming until later. It just feels like yet another tier 0 thing that CIG throws out half finished and then moves on and forgets about, except this thing is the single most fundamental gameplay element this game has to offer.
What is fun about jousting?
Not much, thats why MM sucks..
@@morganlefay-k4c Jousting occurs only because you can't be assed to control your throttle.
@@nuanil and when you want to recharge your shields
@@morganlefay-k4c Who doesn't want to recharge their depleted shields? If they can....
All the things could have been fixed on the old flight model as well, The new flight model feels horrible for even non-pvp related things switching in-between the two modes all the time
Saying that balancing can fix Master modes I honestly think is irrelevant, literally the balance and changes could have fixed the old flight model as well
That’s why I stopped playing master modes is annoying and I have never done PvP nor do every think I will.
I think they should make the ships go as fast as they can with thrust and combining vectors etc. I think the limiting factors should be the limitations on the human body in the game. If you pull too many Gs you should pass out, crush your body, die etc. Also speeds and acceleration could be like Avenger is saying about momentum and mass and the physical strengths of the ships. If you fly toward the ground too fast and try to pull up in a plane the wings can break off, cause damage to the ship etc. They should then let us have the g force keep us in safe limits unless we turn it off, or let us do custom limits to find the edge of conciouseness, and stamina.
At 21:42 Tomato hit the nail on the head that he gave up on it being a sim and he's not happy with that conclusion. To that I say why give up on it being a sim? Bring back realistic physics and mike it a sim again!
The Go-cart analogy was good. I think A1 is right that if we're constantly up against the speed wall it doesn't feel like free flight, it feels like we're restricted.
That halo analogy was good. Made me change my mind on MM.
Avenger_1 is so on point here. I wish the SC flight model got closer to realism to not further away. I wish the mundane task in life like moving boxes got further way from realism. I like space tomato as a person, but his videos are not critical enough of SC for my taste. I can understand this somewhat because he makes his living as a SC RUclips content creator so he must aim to please his audience.
I think you might have been spot-on with the components talk, it’s a shame that it wasn’t discussed further. Avenger is right about the size difference between ships, but Maelstrom and the Components system looks to combat that directly. Smaller gun sizes will take longer to pierce through the hull but, add onto that, you need to be focus firing on a component which is MUCH smaller than a fighter. Then deciding which components to begin targeting as the larger ships will absolutely need multiple components to go offline to really stop the ship. Sure, a Constellation or a Carrack is a big target but it’s actually a bunch of tiny heavily armoured items.
This podcast was very enjoyable to listen to. I've already commented several times on different videos about this issue in the past few of days. And to be absolutely honest, I am not a PVP-er. I would like to be, but I'm horrible. What truly rubs me the wrong way about this new flight model is the disbelief of fluid dynamics in space and mode switching. I'm not a developer and I don't really know how to fix this situation, but I do know those two particular aspects of the Flight model need to die.
Flight was actually in a good place from 3.9.1 to right before MM. I used to not agree with A1 in many areas, but I totally agree when it comes to MM. This really took the fun out of dog fighting for me. Way to many ships are slugs in atmosphere, to the point they are slower than planes today. That makes no sense.
I'm one of the casual people that were talked about, who joins and leaves the verse with the update hype. I've played x5 stints (2-3 months at a time) since the end of the kickstarter. This past year I've seen and messed with both recent flight models. From someone who doesn't PVP, Avenger's paint drawings helped me understand the fundamental issues I'd been feeling with ship combat (PVE at least). I never got to the skill ceiling in any model because frankly, I'm just waiting for a 1.0 release to sink my teeth into the game, especially the pvp aspect. It's PERSONALLY disheartening to play and grind away at features I know will get changed. After the many years of flight feedback and model changes, I truly hope they listen and work on mastermodes. I agree that a moderate-high skill ceiling should be in the game for ship combat. If they want the game to be played for years to come, the game needs that depth. The same way they're working on furthering the depth of the environments, missions and reputation as of recent, the flight model needs that too. Hell, this flight model felt so simple that I purchased a flight stick. I've always used mouse and keyboard, but 3.23 gave me the push I needed to spend $200 and learn to play HOSAM. It felt so mundane that I needed to add a layer of complication to get the satisfaction of improvement.
As I do agree with a majority of the points made in this podcast, I will say that as crazy as it may seem, the flying is NOT the end all be all for every star citizen player now. When the kickstarter launched, it was important the game was this amazing OPEN WORLD space SIM game. Previously, combat and bounty hunting were the most important things for me. Now, I'm most excited for base building. That feature-set of the game could make or break how much time I spend in the verse come release. To be able to link salvaging, mining, and every other money making method to pool it into a home that shows the tremendous amount of time I put in is the most important part for me. One of my buddies is only interested in purchasing a game package once the bunker/fps part of the game is not a buggy mess. He has no interest what-so-ever in how his ship flies or how he gets there. He just wants to gun run and mindlessly shoot ai.
TLDR: Casual feels the flight model is lacking in depth but is easier to get the hang of. Avenger's paint drawings helped this causal to understand why it felt that way.
Interesting... I've the opposite feeling.
I've always used/preferred HOTAS prior to MM.
Now, I don't even bother using my $1500 worth of peripherals with this game.
I do play DCS a lot more now though....
I appreciate this one tomato. I really like A1. He is a passionate guy. It's the kind of person we all have at our job that it's hard to keep up with but if you can leverage their knowledge and passion correctly we can really get a lot out of them. It would be really cool to see CIG engage various community members to help shape the future of SC into a better place.
The problem with MM is it feels fake. With the previous flight model your speed was fully under your control, sometimes to your own detriment. but this made sense. When you coming in to land at an outpost you would need to manage your speed and velocity to land well. Now with MM you just hit a button that brings you down to an approach speed and then hit the landing gear button that brings you down to a crawl speed. This interaction feels fake. With the previous model even pulling off a smooth landing felt great. Now it feels like crap because the flight model feels fake and divorced from reality. Not even combat flying, just regular flying.
I've stopped playing since 3.23, mostly due to the constant server desync. But Master Modes (in its current iteration) is also a big factor. The flight experience is worse than it was previously, and I'm not (much of) a dogfighter.
I look back to the "physics isn't a dirty word" post and feel like we've lost something important. Space drag, fake space brakes, arbitrarily low speed limits that 21st century aircraft can easily exceed (and mid 20th century spacecraft eclipsed by many orders of magnitude) are too far removed from reality to make spaceflight immersive. I realise that actual orbital velocities would be too much for the engine and servers to handle, but we're knocking up against the harsh reality that cinematic Star Wars style space combat and realistic 6DOF are very different things that aren't really compatible without making huge compromises that render at least one of those goals impossible to attain.
Personally I'd accept cool cinematic dogfights in atmosphere only, where speeds are necessarily lower, and ship speed and manoeuvring are limited by aerodynamics, and informed by atmospheric density and gravitational effects. You could have the same thing in space with very dense gas clouds with a little scifi hand wavery, but otherwise, then let space combat be super fast with wildly fluctuating ranges.
I mean, i can see where A1 is coming from. But a lot of times i just get the same feeling about what hes saying as i do when someome tries to say weve never had true communism.
Bruhhhh for real
I've watched this 3 times now. I find nothing wrong with avenger 1's take our presentation. I do see his frustration with the Moron Modes flight model. I share it. And that's coming from a non pvper. It was just much more immersion friendly. And a LOT less likely to cause cognitive dissonance.
17:01 - This is the main problem with Master Modes. It is a flight model designed for people that don't like to fly spaceships, by people that don't like to fly spaceships. CIG should just forget about PvP balance for a while and create the most immersive, deep, believable and cohesive flight model they can. PvP would be challenging, but CIG will have to make PvP 100% optional anyway because the vast majority of their players aren't interested in PvP. Simplifying PvP to the point of making all flight trivially easy won't entice players that aren't interested in PvP to begin with, and it will certainly drive away everyone looking for a deep and engaging PvE experience.
@@texnorthman I can absolutely see where you are frustrated by MM.
But that’s not why master modes was implemented.
Chris Roberts has this unhealthy and incredibly stupid obsession with WW2 era airplane combat portrayed in Hollywood movies like the original Star Wars trilogy.
Since he dictates everything out of CIG….
That’s the actual reason why master modes was implemented.
The fix that might allow master modes to be both fun, and WW2 cinematic like would be to slow engine and booster acceleration by two thirds in ECM. And lower booster capacitance by about three quarters to match the artificial speed wall.
@@jbirdmax if you want an authentic modern air combat experience there would be no guns, at all, it would just be BVR all day long at 70km+ ranges and running away from radar...
@@123Andersonev or if people want to shot pixels at 30km distance
@@123Andersonev Hell ya. Let's roll. Take all the fun out of it, and then PvP only happens when it means something.
@@nuanil would be like the monty python sketch with the rabbit all day.
To be honest, i never understood how far back CIG are on the flight model. I feel like it's that one thing that I would have made sure to nail first. Like it's so important for the game. Atmospheric flight model is pretty much inexistent or in a really bad state and we havent even heard of what they are doing with it. Yet they want to release SQ42. How the hell are you going to release a game centered around flying ships when the flight model is so poorly implemented right now. Like it's fine and working, but clearly it's something that needs to be really good.
If you look at a game like GTA 5, the tuning on the driving is just perfect for that type of game IMO. It's not full sim, but their physics engine is so good that the cars really behave like you expect/anticipate them to behave. That's what CIG should be going for. Something that feels believable, but is leaning a little on the arcade and fun parts as well.
Great discussion. I just dont really liked when you said we dont want or we are the crowd for another rocket league...Im a Rocket league player and i have to say that rocket league have one of the most enjoyable control system and also a very vey high learning curve, but the process of playing and learning is always enjoyable...
you start the ball go everywhere, you have no control, after a while you get the speed right and you are able to calibrate your speed.. after you learn to do aerials .. and start of doing more and more crazy thing in the air.. while at the same time controling a bouncing ball... doing micro adjustement in trajectory and boost... I would say if SC would have a system like Rocket league but for ships.. it will probably be a flight model that would be praised... In rocket league you have player that always overshoot the ball, miss it.. not able to calculate angle to shoot.. and some other in high leevel you will never be ble to touche the ball and they will controll it either on the groud or in the air as they are magician...That a system with a crazy learning curve and skill but easy to understand and very veyr fun to try to become better at because it simple and you focus on your movement instead of focussing on milllion of buttn to press.
Yes! I've always said to make learning SC like RL. Easy to start, fun to learn, high skill ceiling.
@@dex6147 That would be amazing!
Great talk Space Tomato and Avenger_One two of my favorite RUclipsrs for Star Citizen. I like the talk about the trouble with Master Modes. I started playing this game in 3.22 and was mostly drawn to the game by the quality of the the flight model. I was very disappointed when they switched to Master Modes, mostly because it disrupts the gameplay. I would like to add though that I really do not care how they design their game so if they want to do Master Modes who cares, however Master Modes breaks the game lore. They are telling us that that multiple alien species would agree to put a button on their dash to force the speed of their ships slower so that they are better targets. So a highly aggressive species like the Vanduul, for example, would agree to slow their ships to make them better targets when all they want is to dominate and take over systems for the resources. Master Modes does not match the story. If they want to control combat speeds they should do it with some made up physics, like maybe the shields becomes unstable at a certain speed, or some other made up physics reason. No intelligent person or even (made up) alien species would choose to make themselves a better target. The speed and maneuverability of the Vanduul Blade was a serious threat in 3.22, now in 3.32+ it is more of a death trainer because it has neither the handling nor the speed to make it effective. This is the same for all of the light fighters.
I’m a long time backer of 10+ years and I agree with your guest. master modes right now just feels so wrong as artificial speed limits with ships stuck together with virtual elastic bands has destroyed the flight combat experience. I’ve stopped putting money into this game until flight combat becomes fun and challenging. To slow down combat, bring it down into atmosphere of planets where it makes sense, but space combat should be space combat following the laws of physics IMO.
Easy solutin for multicrew:
Heavy fighter (Scorpius)turrets: Size 3 Guns
Medium Multicrew(conny/Corsai) Turrets: size 4 Guns
Multicrew (A2/HH)Turrets: Size 5 Guns
ALL S3 Shield have Active Regeneration under fire
ALL Turett Guns Have 25% morer projectile speed and Range.
Weapon Speed / Range:
S1: 1000 / 1250
S2: 1250 / 1500
S3: 1500 / 1750
S4: 1750 / 2000
S5: 2000 / 2250
S6: 2250 / 2500
S7: 2500 / 2750
I know the numbers are simply but they work mathematicly and gamephysics are only numbers.
Didn't Yogi during CitCon 2023 say something about weapons of smaller size no longer going to be effective against the armor of larger ships (like firing 9 mm against a tank was the comparison)? That would solve the fighter meta against large ships that Avenger was taling about.
There is no word about Malestrom, the damage/armour model that was showcased during last citcon. We dont know if its coming in 2024, 2025 or 2030.
It was Size 3 and smaller guns would basicly have no effect on larger/armored ships.
@@Sylar0n You made me go search for it. It was not during citcon, but during an ISC that this topic was scratched. ruclips.net/video/enjxVl35G9U/видео.html at around 8 min. This in combination with armor I guess has the potential to solve the problems with small vs. larger ships.
@@Sylar0nthey mentioned months ago that maelstrom was integrated into the main branch
WW2 style combat for a space game? That's DAF. Clearly it isn't working. You can't have dogfights if there's no one in the game to fight with. SC has suffered the biggest loss of players faster than any other time in its history. At this rate, by the time this "game" comes out (if ever) there will be no one around to play. AVENGER_ONE is the dose of truth that CIG needs to hear.
1:28:08 acceleration is so damn high, always was. Also it was a huge mistake from cig not nailing components and their scaling down, especially of power plants and thrusters.
I'm glad we have this POV to criticize the status quo. I'm also glad he's not in charge and it's just a point to take into account.
Totally agree with Avenger One. It would have been fine if master modes was only in Squadron 42. I no longer play SC since Master Modes released in PU Live. I just wasn't feeling the "sim" part anymore. No worries, I'm sure nobody (in CIG) is going to miss me. Time to pack up my HOTAS and clear the desk.
Quite frankly if SC was in my Steam library, it would have been moved out of my "Simulators" favorite group (containing FPV sims, DCS, MS Flight Sim, etc.) and into "MMORPG Tier III" which contains No Man's Sky., which, I would probably launch more often because it's gameplay or "sim" better matches it's stylized looks.
A1 is definitely correct when it comes to the problem with effective range. Its not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. You can calculate the problem, you can quantify it. But I could tell it went completely went over Tomato's head though, based off his returning questions that I didn't think made much sense.
I could give them more funding... but I won't... because I feel the game isn't going toward what I was sold initially...
if they can'T even figure out the flight model in 10 years... well they have no idea what they are doing then....
that's not looking good for the futur.
Not a fan of master modes but also not a fan of jousting at 1400 mps against a dude back strafing. If we really wanted a sim we would be shooting at each other from miles away and lasers would be hit scan. I want something fun, with a high ceiling and looks cool.
Yeah, but that is not what anyone proposed, right?
Clever sci-fi knows to use suspension of disbelief techs to bring engagement distance closer and meanwhile still make sense.
CIG added 'character giving blind spots" to every capital ship, which always meant that large ships were going to die to small ships which are faster. That has been a flaw from the beginning, when they removed the stern turrets off the Javelin and Idris. Heck, the Hull C has *no* turrets that can cover the lower half of the ship. CIG clearly always intended large ships to require small ships to survive - which is fundamentally flawed, because CIG also wants people to be able to actually fly and enjoy large ships. They need to course correct on large v small ships, and flight model changes - the flight model is currently just bad. It is not beyond salvaging, but ... lets get real, instant acceleration thrusters and a hard, narrow speed band ... really? Slowing combat is good until you remember that large ships are even slower (by CIG design), so they become glacial and super dull to fly - and they don't have full turret coverage so they absolutely will just die in the 'Verse.
We need video with A1 and BuzzcutPsycho! Make it happen Spacey Tom :) would love to watch the debate. I feel both have good points in regards to MM, so would love to see these 2 discuss it.
pretty sure that will never happen on this channel
Tomato had @BuzzCutPsycho on his channel once before... he deleted the video because of old information about him.
Naw BuzzCut just likes to throw out insults rather than reason when it comes to MM
@@louhodo5761 did see that video, didnt realise he deleted it. What was the info?
@@Spidder81 lets just say BCP has made questionable comments about people of certain skin tones in the past
I have to submit an idea: what if we didn't have to switch modes but if we went over a certain throttle value for a certain amount of time the weapons and shields would drain on their own, then charge back up when operating under SCM limits again?
@17:00 A1 is correct here. Also, I want a skill based space sim.....not fortnight in space.
@@babykosh5415 There's no skill in Fortnite? Any random could easily defeat the best Fortnite players?
@@LucidStrike But there is no sim in fortnite
@@LucidStrike Better yet, do you think the best Fortnight players could actually win against an Average PUBG or ARMA player?
What are the big problems is they funded the entire project by selling individual spaceships. If the goal is to accommodate a ton of people you were going to have someone who has a literal fleet of 10 or more spaceships that realizes they really don't like being a pilot because of the design of the flight model.
The way I see Master Modes, most of the valid complains that are related to the flight model are problems that Yogi and his team have already addressed that they want to work on. It seems to me as though people disregard that fact and complain about the flight model as if it failed already, when it hasn't even finished development.
Yogi explained to us to initial release goal of Master Modes, which was as follows: "re-introduce the relative slow flight gameplay (we're talking WW2 speeds)". He followed it that by talking about what it achieved (all of which I've also noticed)...
- Combat is closer than before which has resulted in being able to see your enemy and their ship much better
- It made combat more accessible by forcing everyone to fly at speeds that even experts in combat were using anyway. That way you aren't flying mock 5 landing a few shots, turning back, and the shields of that ship are already back up. If you've ever played against anyone but professionals, this was such a problem, I refused to play any further. You get nothing done at those speeds for both sides.
- And then he talked about ship differences are more "meaningful" which I don't have enough money to test this out.
He also spoke of what their next adjustments are. But its not like this was his only communication. He had talked previously about how MM lacked any proper skill and while it made entry into combat easier, the skill ceiling was still low and this was something they intended to improve.
> robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3/thread/weapon-groups-do-not-persist-between-flight-modes-/7152617
> robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3/thread/request-for-yogi-can-you-make-a-video-to-show-us-w/6818844
In Summary? No, it's not working currently, but it's also not finished currently, so you can't claim it has failed... He is also aware of many of the problems with the flight model and does want to bring more skill into the flight model. And honestly, until Yogi adds those changes, the best you can do is provide constructive feedback and actually tell him what you are wanting to see instead of saying "its sucks! Pull a solution out of your rear!" The reason I avoid talking about MM with this community anymore is because both sides of the isle have become so clouded by their feelings that they complain about issues that are either not related to MM or are issues Yogi has already addressed that they will be finding fixed for.
Exactly what I've been saying but these folks are so hyperfixated on the game that they can't help but be doomsayers. The game can't be that bad if you're playing it 24-7 and editing videos on it when you should be doing almost anything else. It's very unfinished, you can't call it out this way in its current state.
My issues with your comment is, that SC for most part revolve around space battles, and 14 years of development later, they continuously produce crap.
The MOST important part of the game, the big reason why most people care about the game, the ships is half baked system.
Imagine you make MMORPG and for 14 years you cannot make even polished dogfighting. This is the first system that should've been at polishing stage, not active/delayed development stage.
Its such a huge red flag, its terrifying to some one who spent 250$ on the game. The devs are unable to have even remotely viable CORE systems.
How many years I still need to wait? 5? For ship combat 1.0 to come out? Im sorry what?
@@SimplyVanis It’s completely okay to put the game down and come back in 5 years when we have MAYBE 2-3 completely functional gameloops. It’s what I’ve been doing since 2015. The scale of a game we all want isn’t going to come overnight, it sure as hell isn’t going to come by even November 2025. They’re taking steps in the right directions, slow albeit but steady nonetheless.
my understanding is that the eventual goal is for the cockpits to become fully clickable like DCS. How are you proposing to look down and click a button to engage a missile or gun at 1500 m/s? and befoer someone says keybinds see above fully clickable cockpits. You have to be able to control your systems and fight. Anything else and just play ace combat. This is directed at the full speed combat guys.
@@fathead8933 That's what the interact prompt they included was for, combined with the faceware head tracking so you just shift your gaze to the button, the F prompt pops up and you press F.
And outside that they need to fix in-game key-binding to accept modifiers and add every MFD function as a key-bindable action
My old man used to say if you don't have time to do it right the first time when are you going to have time to redo it correctly. My problem is that they shouldn't change something like this half assed without fixing it.
I just wish all but main thrusters were less powerful. Maybe they'll take it in that direction after aerodynamics start being a thing and VTOL mode starts being important.
There is a key bind to allow for throttle input adjustment.
@@RoroYaKnow I doubt that limits the thruster power of all the ships around :)
I guess main thrusters are a bit too powerful as well since you hit max speed quite fast as A1 mentioned.
@@Qwarzz Yes.. but that can be controlled via "acceleration limiter"
Just like top scm was controlled by speed limiter.
I don't recall when they removed the blackouts and red outs, that let you know you were going too fast for that manuver.
The Fix is simple. Bigger Gun. Longer Range.
lvl 1 = 1km, lvl 2, 2km. lvl 3, 3km.
I like your idea with linking the weapons to the reactors level. Smaller reactor gives a smaller range on the weapon you fire.
You can have a level 7 weapon with a level 3 reactor on the ship. The level 3 reactor can only generate the charge to fire the weapon at a 3km distance. Big gun, small range for the inferno / ion. A capitol ship will have longer range on the same level of weapon because its reactor can give more charge to propel the firepower farther and faster.
Every gun can switch between Armor Penetration or Flack Explosive.
Big Gun vs Small Fighter = Big Gun using Big Flack Explosive so that it always hits the fighter at longer ranges.
By the time the Fighter Manuvers the shot. The shot does splash damage. The Fighter must then Get Outside the range of the larger guns. The Fighter will always be inside the range of the larger guns because its guns are always smaller.
I honestly agree with A1 on so little it's a meme, but I do agree with him on most of this master modes takes...
It would take an actual book to go into depth and give a proper opinion so instead, im just looking at my friends list and it went from around 10-20 ppl online at the beginning of 3.23 daily to 0 or maybe 1 at the beginning of 3.24. Was the game more fun/popular before 3.23/MM or was it more fun/popular afterwards. One thing that can't be debated is that ppl aren't playing.. The numbers are at their lowest in years and I think the flight model that ppl loved (because it was always something you could do.. so many ppl like just flying around without changing modes and having shields down and having crappy acceleration) is part of that reason.
didn't watch yet, but i would like to see debates between BuzzCutPsycho and AvengerOne on this topic
I’ll get the popcorn 🍿
I wont be happy until combat modes are at least 500 (and thats settling for less), and shields, guns, and countermasures can be used in nav mode (with slower regen modes for shields and guns). Ideally removing master modes because of its un-necessary complexities and better balancing things would be the way to go. Fight ranges and speeds can easily be closer and slower by manipulating how power works on ships, and the effective range of projectiles as well as the strength of those projectiles at set distances.
Tomato, it felt like you came to this convo with your mind made up and kind of disengaged. I urge you to really disengage from all the people with weirdly visceral anti-MM hate comments, because you seem not to be engaging well with the valid concerns and the sheer number of changes to fifferent systems that MM brought. I am not a fan of MM, both in terms of the dramatic shift of flight model, nor the (to me) nonsensicle changes to how ship hardware fundamentally works via mode shifting. I dont feel like my opinion is particularly charged, and i think my concerns are just as valid as my friends enjoyment of the changes. I want to hear the positives from you that make your experience different from mine, because i value that different perspective, but your comments felt totally dismissive or at least unengaged from the opposite side. I hope its just because you were real tired of the anti-mm spam, and that you come to future talks regarding MM more with an approach that allows comparison of affirmations and issues rather than dismissals.
Sorry if its a bummer of a message, hope its not piling on too much. Dont let peoples hate in MM feel like hate directed at you just because you like it, its not worth tying ourselves into any particular model of this game to the point where we cant hear each other. ❤
Great debate guy, put the fun back in star citizen............cause that's why we play games. Keep it simple.
Im a long time backer, been playing since pre-PU. I'm not a fan of mastermodes for 2 main reasons...
1.) The jarring switch between modes. Pulling 90gs decelerating from nav would cause catastrophic damage to the human body.
2.) The speeds are too low for the accelerations we have. A large part of dogfighting is managing your energy state. 25gs of acceleration trivializes it with the low top speed we have and hitting the speed wall feels terrible.
I think they could fix this with a more organic solution that has a far less jarring transition than a binary mode switch, however doing what A1 prescribes will help combat geometry within MM, which I will summarize...
1.) Lowering accelerations to previous flight model levels, or comparable. (Personally I think they were better when they were much lower in early 3.x patches, like 3.3)
2.) Increase SCM speed to 500ish (I would say for all ships personally, IMHO it shouldn'tbe ship dependent)
3.) Decrease afterburner top speed increase significantly so that it is only a small fraction of what it is currently proportional to non-boosted speeds.
* This would remove the need to boost an entire fight
* It would make maneuvering a larger component in combat. (not because you're dodging projectiles, that's arcadey, but are able to make effectively "getting into the kill zone" more difficult at higher energy states)
I think in addition to that, we need the long delays back for switching to nav mode in small ships, like it was early on in evo testing (minus the mode switch lockout) Right now it's way too easy to nav out of a fight in smaller ships, which defeats one of the core complaints about the previous FM that MM was intended to address. There is no consequences to engagment as It's too damn easy to escape a dogfight unless theres quantum interdiction present.
It should take 10 seconds or more to switch to NAV mode, but the switch to nav mode should be a cancelable action. Switching from NAV to SCM should be instant, but you should have to rely upon your thrusters to slow down and merge.
Interceptors will need special consideration so they're still viable, but they cannot maintain both an acceleration and top speed advantage like they have today. If they have a significant top speed advantage over other ship classes they MUST have slower accelerations than other fighters so they're not able to completely dictate the engagement.
Personally I would also like to see a curve in acceleration rather than linear. The closer you are to your top speed the less you accelerate.
Have to admit ... I got bored real quick with the new flight model. I miss the old days (not even the one before MM, before that). I like the cargo systems - but I find actually flying my cargo ships boring. *sigh*
Most of these discussions seem to ignore the negative impact on Star Citizen's barrier to entry, focusing only, or mostly, on (PvP) combat, and the balance thereof. I don't necessarily care about either (if I get into PvP it's generally because that choice was made for me) if if already feels I need a Phd just to get around, or fight some entry-level NPCs.
Master Modes frontloads all of the complexity by requiring players to not only learn a bunch of new controls (on top of the ones they already had to learn for the 3.22 model), but additionally effectively learn multiple ships at once (since ships behave vastly different in differing modes) on top of systems being (un)available depending on which mode they're in.
The majority of the difficulty in 3.22's flight model was in the mechanics of flight, learning the ships, and their acceleration patterns. In MM it's in the controls, and remembering which things do what, and when. Feels like you need a flow-chart to fly in MM.
As someone not coming from a sim background, unlike, at least so it feels like, everyone else in these discussions (including the devs), Master Modes feels excessively convoluted when compared to the beautiful simplicity of the 3.22 model.
Since getting into SC I've dabbled in some of the "finished" space sims around, and I've always come back to this alpha, oftentimes barely functional, game because it didn't present me with the "EVE cliffside"-learning curve for its basic mechanics. SC flight was relatively easy to learn, and relatively easy to pick back up after long breaks. Unlike, for example, Elite's which I just didn't go back to after a month long break and realizing I didn't remember how to fly at all, so I'd have to climb that learning-cliff all over again.
I'm sure the 3.22 model had its issues, but based on following these discussions I've come to believe many, if not most, weren't even issues with the model, necessarily, but with the tuning, or with CIG not delivering systems that are essential for the balance they say they want (like armour, or the turret changes that would've worked just as well in 3.22 as far as I can tell)
also, limits imposed by Master Modes feel extremely artifical
I haven't finished this podcast yet. But in past A1 has listed SC's lack of onboarding tutorial as a very big gripe point
Yeah it's annoying that MM is being treated like a silver bullet when its barely fixed anything yet. There were solutions that could have been tried in the previous flight model instead
Awesome again tomato and avenger. Made sense in terms of fixing for long term and not just one aspect. Gameplay is very important for SC to me. And it does affect all ships.
The best Halo analogy would be... what if the developers said you guys are running away too fast? Let's just make everyone walk instead of running. This way everyone can see the details of your gun and outfit and enjoy shield Bubbles go down. This will lower the skill ceiling and make combat more accessible to everyone.😅
halo was better when everyone moved at a jog so your analogy is trash
@@mymaudlincareer I mean...... that's the argument he's making.......
But, you can only run and gun in a straightine.
You have to switch modes to strafe and that makes you walk.
CIG’s spastic development mentality gives me no reason to trust them to finish MM or make it work as they intend. MM isn’t the main issue here for me, it’s a decade of ADHD development that leaves me doubting their capacity to fully realize anything.
What I don’t care for i sleep having another adult tell why I can’t possibly be having fun while playing SC with MM. He comes across like the SC players I block because they constantly complain about everything in the game and get upset when people don’t agree. Maybe that’s not entirely true about him but that how it comes across. Tomato making a statement and then having him condescending explain why he’s right is just something I have never cared for. We all play games for different reasons and it’s obvious that his preferred play mode has been disrupted and now he feels the need to explain to other why the whole project of SC is terrible sorry but I can’t get behind that. If I want someone to call me stupid because I took their toy away I’ll just go play with my 2 year old. Great job tomato keep being us these chats. I don’t agree with the guest on much but great conversations require different perspectives!
Huh? How did you come to that conclusion?
@@latjolajban81which point?
@@quincybelk6267 "What I don’t care for i sleep having another adult tell why I can’t possibly be having fun while playing SC with MM. He comes across like the SC players I block because they constantly complain about everything in the game and get upset when people don’t agree. Maybe that’s not entirely true about him but that how it comes across. Tomato making a statement and then having him condescending explain why he’s right is just something I have never cared for. We all play games for different reasons and it’s obvious that his preferred play mode has been disrupted and now he feels the need to explain to other why the whole project of SC is terrible sorry but I can’t get behind that. If I want someone to call me stupid because I took their toy away I’ll just go play with my 2 year old. Great job tomato keep being us these chats. I don’t agree with the guest on much but great conversations require different perspectives!"
This point.
I think that like a lot of people you're getting this guy wrong
@@latjolajban81 That's multiple points. I will summerize these then. I didn't care for the manner in which he responded to Tomato around the 20-minute mark when a point was made about why some in the community are happy with MM. In my opinion, Avenger was condescending in his response. I even rewatched it to ensure I felt good about that position I do. These are my options based on my interactions with Avengers materials, so my perceptions will be difficult to "prove" to another. The final point I made about his gameplay loop being disrupted is based on his words, not mine, that while he might enjoy some of the other styles of play, dogfighting is his primary loop. He defended his position on this fine. He was articulate when discussing the issues he had with the way MM has changed, but he, on multiple occasions, projected a bit onto the community that since these changes were made, the community felt betrayed. This isn't entirely wrong. I just don't care for someone disliking something and then projecting that onto the community as a whole or on a project. It's broad strokes that are not only difficult to prove, I would argue, but it's nearly impossible. So, I arrived at my conclusion by taking the interview piece by piece contextualizing what was being said, and not looking to generalize. If that didn't come across in the initial post, I apologize for that. I'll try to be more clear going forward. I'll finish by restating these are just my opinions of the interview and discussion and mine alone, I enjoy these discussions; I just don't care for the projected attitude that since something is bad for me, it's bad for all.
All a really good discussion on everything that's been cooking in my head since 3.23. But yes, we need to make this more clear: *"Master Modes," as a topic itself, is not the actual problem here.* The flight model needs fundamental adjustments to make all of the ships viable and playable. The geometry problems, the weapon speeds and balance, the velocity caps and thruster behaviors, they all need adjustments and revisions to make this work.
The mode switching in itself between NAV and SCM has its own problems, and I still do not like the way it functions, but that is an entirely separate subject from making the flight model feel fun to fly with.
I stopped playing because of master modes. We have been here before, and the community made it clear that we don't want mode switching in the game. Why are we back at this point again?
I want to love Star Citizen, but after sinking in over 1000 hours in the previous flight model and comparing it to master modes is such a tragic thing. Flying in space with my very powerful spaceship went from thrilling, even just flying around idly, to feeling slow, sluggish and only slightly similar for 5 seconds when I have boost available. It's just not exciting flying the spaceship anymore.
Master Modes sadly diminished all the fun of flying for me. Exploration used to be the main reason i logged in; now the same just doesn't feel good whatsoever. Return to 3.22 : )
Ty for shedding more light on this issue. @Space Tomato I think you said it perfectly, Cargo " I think they have hit something Worth some thing!" You love the full aspect of Loading cargo and all that, perfect. SO now you understand what it would be like to lose that and only get the old way back.... It would be less fun to lose the Scope and depth of the current cargo we have now right. So thats How i feel about the flight model. To lose the depth and the scope to appease the average player , who will only pvp if they are forced into it. I think the same can be said about the current cargo System we have now. CIG is forgetting the number one Rule FUN.... Ship combat is not fun, its both PVP and PVE ,,, Just bad.... bored....Cargo as it stands now sucks.... Took FOREVER TO MOVE gear from starter city to station. Almost a full 7 hours.... This is not fun.... CIG has all this backward LUL.... Dumbed down FM , Went full Sim on Cargo system.... Number one rule is fun..... and i have stopped playing since 3.23, Ship combat is left in a state of crap, Cargo is great at first,,,, but then Reality Sinks in........ Took a full day just to move my gear from starting city... I encourage every one to step back and Really ask you IS this game going to be fun? Im not Having fun... all the OG backers and vets are not playing at all.... I find my self a 12 Year backer and player not logging in at all.... Rather Go play NO mans Sky,,,, FYI i said id never play NMS and here i am..... LUL GOod Video... great Stream... Im worried about the project ... love and vibes
Master modes strikes me as they are trying to achieve equality of outcome meaning everyone gets a kill rather than equal opportunity put in the effort and reap the rewards.
I'm not a PvP player, but right now, the experience of flying and fighting is extremely unfun. In its current state, you just aim at opponents, and the player with the better equipment usually wins. Both PvP and PvE are crucial for a game's longevity, with PvP being especially vital. After reaching endgame content, players often turn to PvP because it offers a dynamic experience with real players. Games like Counter-Strike, PUBG, Battlefield, and Call of Duty are popular because they excel in PvP, while many MMOs lose player interest once endgame content is exhausted, primarily due to lacking engaging PvP.
Star Citizen's PvP used to be complex and required hundreds of hours to master, but the developers at CIG have made it more accessible by simply nerfing it, which is not the right approach. Instead, they should focus on adding tutorials and incentives to encourage players to engage in PvP. As players complete all other aspects of the game, they naturally gravitate towards PvP. For example, even though I'm not a PvP enthusiast, I planned to dive into it extensively once I had tried everything else and the game became more stable and feature-complete.
You guys really need to stop Bullying Avenger one. Let the guy enjoy his space game damn 😅
He needs to let the devs build the damn space game.
"Master Modes is just going downhill!" It's been basically 1 patch, my guy 🤦🏿♂️and he's being so melodramatic about it. He plays to emotion, and that's like playing with fire. 🤷🏿♂️
@@LucidStrikeFalse. We've been moving this way since 3.14.
This was a great discussion. I agree with most of Avenger Ones points.
It is true, that most issues with the flight model can be fixed within MM. But they could also have been fixed within the "old" flight model. As a mostly solo player, I have many issues with the artificial speed gaps introduced by MM. The constant switching between modes gets old really fast and doesn't feel as dynamic as smoothly setting the speed limiter. As a physicist I also have a huge problem with the rates of accelerations, our ships can pull. It should not be possible to reach max speed in 2 seconds (at least not without killing the pilot). If we assume that a human body can typically withstand about 6g, it would take about 4 seconds to accelerate to 240 m/s safely. Stopping from high velocity should take much longer than accelerating, unless I rotate the ship by 180 to brake with the rear engine. No way those tiny maneuvering thrusters can pull 6g of deceleration.
I really don't think it is a good sign, that CIG has still not figured this stuff out after 13 years.
If you could get, say, BuzzCutPsycho on, either with A1 or on his own, to balance this a tad bit more, that would be interesting af 👀
Admittedly, you'd have to get Buzz to chill on the insults. 😅
[EDIT: After watching this, I've decided I'm definitely not watching anymore MM discussions with JUST A1. There's disproportionately too much A1 content on the channel in this regard. I suggest finding someone ELSE to consult with about this shit so you're not constantly just giving only A1 the podium. Very much needs balance.]
Well if he didn't have a proven history of being a racist pos, his interview on the launch sequence podcast might not have been deleted hours after its release. Doubtful that we'll see him here in the future...
Was about to write a post about problems with MM and realized I just don't care anymore. It's ruined the game so much I'm very near to selling my account that I've held on to since the kickstarter. Respect A1 trying to educate about the geometry problems and the correct fixes. Just don't feel like the devs are listening or even trying to got that direction anymore.
I didn’t understand why people thought MM was a good idea when it was revealed, we were sold a sim, built that (as close as possible) then develop flight systems to make the experience as fun, immersive, and robust as possible across all types of ships and encounter types.
Unless you were dog fighting
so you don't want dogfighting then.
Exactly.
@21:00 So after taking in 12x the money they swore they needed to do everything you're now OK with them not giving us what they sold so they can get that up to what? 20x before they pivot to making a cooking game or whatever they need to get it up to 25x?
Welp..... time for pitchforks and popcorn. My favourite combination. Let the haters hate, the white knights shine and the bad takes begin. You know its a spicy one when the hate comments start minutes after the vid is posted 😅.
It's all content.
Yeah these comments should be fun!
He nailed it. MM doesn’t feel real anymore. It feels like a cheap game.
12 years in, FM is still far from a close to final implementation and somehow it is not even apriority according to Yogi's post. Enough said, everything else is cope.
The people buying the ships are age 55 to 70. These are the people that can afford $2000 ships. You see it at CIT CON..
this
so star trek watchers
I'm not 55 yet...
Here's a problem.
Master Modes and CIG are pushing a flight engine to appeal to a wider audience....
Screw that.... WE already paid for the game. They need to be making it to appeal to what sold us on the project. What convinced US to finance it...
Not NEW players....
exactly this... they have to follow what was promissed and not changing game mechanics in it's core not to make it better but to appeal to more players who are not even into this type of game... that's wrong move and shady as F... bottom line focusing on new players is valid strategy but it have to be in a way where they can explore game in fun ways like gunner on a multicrew ship, as a pizza delivery guy or helping someone to load cargo with handheld beam, slow steps, slowly learning exploring the game, that's how you attract new players.. and not by dumbing down fly model
Space tomato looked not amused during most of this, that stare down 😂 I think he has some points but over all doesn't understand that the zoomies isn't fun gameplay for most people especially new players. Flight model will need work but after all ship systems are in. It's only way to truly balance and time is money. Seems simple to me
it'S an elephant that gonna give birth to a mouse
maybe instead of spending money on real estate and architecure design for their office... they would spend it to actually finish one thing and not retouch it until the game is finished... then I would be more likely to give more funding....
My problem with the old flight system was the smaller the ship the more attributes it had. They had the speed, they had the yaw and pitch all in there favour and this is just not realistic and we saw Avenger One destroying Ships that were of a heavier design and built to fight and this can and should not happen.
The old British aircraft, the Tornado, one of its variants was as an interceptor which meant it could fly in straight line really fast to catch up to and intercept the target. If that target was another fighter like the Mig 29 then the Tornado has no hope in hell of defeating that because it had no turn rate to be able to get behind and then shoot the Mig down.
That is not what we were seeing here, we were seeing the interceptors and the light fighters just dominate everything by having the ability to pull massive g's in every direction and weapon sizes that are too big for that light class of ship. The result was that Avenger One and the other PVP'ers were able to dominate everyone else in the game including Multicrew ships and the only people enjoying PVP were the PVP'ers and this was reflected in the amount of people playing AC.
Everyone else was cannon fodder for them and they would go out of their way to take down a Mole or C2. Sorry 2% ers but us 98% did not find that fun either. Then you heard the PVP'ers whining because non PVP players were running away and I was one of them as an industrialist.
Possible solution: base weapon range on the size of weapon and power on the size of the powerplant with a percentage bonus for multicrew ships.
We should be seeing interceptors and light fighters get destroyed by Multicrew ships pretty easily to be honest and either overwhelming numbers or a more appropriate class ship/s is what is required to bring the multicrew ships down.
dude you take this to personallly i think, is not pvper versus pve or whatever, is the way game work, i do mainly pve and i agree with a1, i don't want to fall into one off his trap in game but that not the same point , we just want that if the connie's crew is smart enought s they shrade a part an arrow coming around them. and u proposal is legit and quiet close that what A1 propose and aim too, cheers
@@Leujee1789 As i was typing the comment I remembered all the times I could not get out of Port Olisar becasue it was constantly being blockaded by PVP'ers. I wanted to play the game as a miner or selling cargo and I just could not play for a whole day or two because i literally could not get off the pad. So, yes you are right, i did make it too personal and thankyou for pointing that out. Will try to be better next time.
I’m about to retire at 40. I’m dedicating the rest of my days to SC.
To tomato's point on it being embarrassing for CIG to scrap the master modes. I think it would be the opposite, in the current gaming climate, for a developer to actually listen to criticism, admit they went the wrong direction, and make changes, would be taken very well.
Helldivers 2. Prime example.
@@darthlambi7359 why would they scrap it, it is a touch point for 4.0. Gotta deal with it a bit longer.
Exactly.
It would be if they didn't have a long history of reworking everything which delays the game getting finished.
@@Brian-us2xz Because nothing in their history that they have done has been this hated.
"Flight" feels awful. It just feels like hovering and aiming. It doesn't feel like flying. Switching back and forth through modes is clunky. Combat is terrible because it's just aim and shoot. Flying skills barely matter anymore.
Yes! This!
Same dude , pve use to be nice in 3.22
I've had zero memorable fights since master modes. It's a fleet engagement focussed model with huge DPS and teaming issues which hasn't taken the other 95% of flight experience into account. I've gone from willing to make it work - to hardly playing. It's the single biggest mistake this game has made (from hundreds) in 12 years. What may work for SQ42 does not work in an MMO expecting thousands of hours of gameplay.
I'm sorry to hear that!
I did not love 3.15, so not "all" loved it. I actually prefer 3.24 flight model over 3.15 one.