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

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

Buyback token when?

April 3rd.

Talk me out of the caterpillar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

even CIG doesn't fucking know.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So how is that 2014 release going?
Oh wait.

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

It's pre-alpha. Get over it.

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

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

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

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

And yet here you are.

>And yet here you are.
Non sequitur.

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

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

External cargo racks when?

Never, hullbabby

...

never ever

>go to bed
>thread dies

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

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

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

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

Fuck missiles.

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

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

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

come on user.

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

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

Highly unlikely

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

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

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

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

The gladiator holds plenty more missiles than the Gladius.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You have no idea.

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

What do the delta's do?

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

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

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

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

Bad design triggers me.

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

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

The Gladius has 2 S2 pyoln mounts.

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

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

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

much like missiles*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wrong reply meant for

>Gladius is not a dogfighter

What did he mean by this

Your pylon count is totally wrong, try again

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

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

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

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

Imagine if this was hexagonal because it looked futuristic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is pretty autismical anyway

You're missing the point.

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

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

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

Final (you) because this is getting silly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Like a retard.

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

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

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

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

Right now its 24.

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

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

SC in lawless space is very likely to be Planetside3.

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

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

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

>vanu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

...

Thats not even what that user meant by stack, just so you know.

But continue to be illiterate, and stupid.

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

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

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

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