วีดีโอ

Liked and subscribed. No BS just straight to the point cut and clean. Deserved my attention

Spectrum: "Raa I got a crew of 10 we're veterans of the Redeemer, and we know for a FACT that this ship was 1000% destroyed by the nerfs! Its useless now bla bla bla" Thanks for being a voice of reason, this game is a mad house rn

tysm

did they think the flight model wasnt going to change? star citizen is an alpha experiment.....there is not even real game content, its just a bunch of jpegs flying around in a bigger jpeg box, of course its going to change

The price should be reduced too Saving grace for Redeemer's future is blades being a thing and NPC crews not. So even if it sucks, it will suck less than trying to maneuver Constellations with pilot guns

I guess you could always throw the technicality of "you didnt buy the ship, you pledged money to the project and got a reward for it" at them when people start crying about not being able to fly their "bought" ships with maximum efficiency

I believe the simplest fix would be that.. well.. the cost of taking out and operating 7 Hammerheads with AI-blades should just be astronomically higher than a well crewed 7 man Hammerhead. 7 Hammerheads with 1 player each might not lose to the one Hammerhead in a fair fight but the cost to do so should just make it pointless. Another idea could be that AI-blades as gunners only do the bare minimum defense against small fighters and do not fire at larger ships (kinda dumb but would solve the issue to some degree)

I am not okay with finding random people I don't know. I do have friends I can crew and play with but finding a time we can all be online only happens once maybe twice a week and sometimes even then friends I know and trust are just not available. That is when I want AI crew to be able to step in. And CIG seems to keep going back and forth about how good this AI crew will be. I've heard them say they will be as good as a player and I've heard they will be not as good. I just wish they would decide on a solid answer. But YES I want to be able to enjoy my ship even when my friends are not available.

I love you, man. You’re one of my favorite creators…. But you are multi crew obsessed sometimes. The corsair has horrible handling, esp in atmo, loses its wings constantly, and 95% of the pilots would not notice if it lost all of its Turrets they are so terrible. It’s OK to have a large ship that is able to put out a lot of DPS in One Direction but cannot defend itself or shake enemies…. It was actually very balanced. It was a solo ship where you could also bring your friends on board and have cargo and vehicles. The trade-off is that it’s much more fragile than the Connie, and a single fighter can butcher you by kiting you all day long. Basically, theCorsair is a glass cannon in PVP and in PVP it’s only survival if you fly it fast in straight lines and put all the power towards One Direction. Basically, it’s the same as an Aries Inferno but it gets 96 cargo and a lot hull hp and loses 30% of its top speed, 60% of this acceleration it is not even close and it’s roll rate. It was a balanced ship. But the way the game is now it was simply the best. When they add armor, this ship would struggle badly because it’s not armored. It simply has a lot of area where damage can go through and do nothing. This was a terrible change. It was a great set up . A multi role ship they could carry other people, but was capable by itself. Not OP at all in any form of PVP unless you were stupid enough to head on with it.

I remember Planetside 2, you could usually get someone in your Liberator. But to get more than one player to help was almost impossible as the tail turret sucked. Filling a Galaxy with 4 players.. forget it. And that a combat game. Getting players to sit in your turret while you haul coal! Not going to happen.

What? I want real people, that is the only sense why I would play this? I don't want NPCs. They just need to implement a real good looking for group tool and the have to make the ships good.

I think it's even worse than that. From the look of it, as you go towards bigger ships, they plan require gradually increased support personnel (engineers/repairmen, medical staff, etc.) that don't directly contribute to raw firepower. On the other hand i can imagine blades/npc require a player officer to give commands like wizzo for gunners. From rich's post saying 'blades will require power' is an obvious way of balancing but it can end up in a too op/useless dichotomy.

Well. I think that the combat aspect of an ai crew would definitely need to be half as effective of a real man crew but on the exploration side of it I think the ai should be effective and efficient.

Buzz is Shortcut 2 Success

Personally, as someone who has been supporting this game from the beginning, and being a "light whale," one of the reasons I decided to buy, or rather, upgrade my Aurora to what is now my beloved Carrack was because I knew that among SC's key features would be the option to hire and manage NPC crews. This doesn't mean I'm closed to having human crew members, especially since the Carrack (is not my only ship, but is the one that started all the whale thing hahaha) is a small ship in the context of large vessels, but as you correctly point out, there are positions that won't be of much interest to other players. Perhaps you can have a group of players aboard for a mission that involves ground combat, and therefore have a group of marines handling that combat at the destination, who don't mind covering turret roles on the way there, which happens today. But once on the ground, assuming the Carrack or another ship needs to provide air support, at that point I lose the necessary personnel for the Carrack to be effective (we know it's not the ship for this, but it's an example that applies in my case). The other reason why NPCs are important for many of us is that many, myself included, aren't the most social and/or popular beings, or at least not enough to have a circle of friends or orgmates numerous enough to make multicrew with players realistically frequent, not to mention all the risks involved in incorporating an unknown crew into your valuable ship using the new party model that was presented. It's useful, yes, but only as long as you have at least half the crew being trusted people, otherwise you're running very high risks. In short, NPCs are important, I believe they should be more or less efficient according to their experience and this should correspond to maintenance costs (salary, food, equipment, etc.), and they will never have the effectiveness of a quality human crew member, but they allow all players to enjoy SC as fully as possible, regardless of their social capabilities which can be affected by how good we are at socializing, how much time we have for it, and how peculiar we are in terms of our character.

Ultimately players will vote with their wallets. Looking like this will be the a worse year financially than last, and another declining year in player sign up which has been trending downwards as marketing is unable to expand the audience. Whatever CIG has done in the past 12 months clearly isn't having the intended effect. looking real bad for a company that burns so much money snd still two years out their first game...if you believe Chris

o7

9:44 " I'd rather have multiple single seat ships" - you ignoring existing CIG plans to evolve component's role in battles. Eventually there will be no "Hull HP", instead there will be "armour"+"hull penetration"+"components HP" leading to ship destruction by damaged components. Which means two things: 1) Attackers will have to keep shorter distance and more precisely target components. This makes scenario with many smaller ships shooting from distance much less likely. Attackers will have to endanger themself in close combat and the smaller they are the more dangerous this will be for them. (Not to say shooting from big distance already has it's significant penalties by projectile speed and spread) 2) Multicrew ships not only have redundant components they also will have engineers in the team who will repair(or replace) damaged components therefore rising survivability. The first question came to my mind when reading Rish post 1:47 - what about engineers, how AI blades will replace them.

Another serious problem of multicrew ships right now is lack of any multicrew UI, like targeting system for instance. When you have 6 gunners and 6 targets there is no UI in the game for these gunners to aim one target synchronously other than saying target nameplate in intercom and then let every gunner to search that target himself. If there was anything like Wow-style raid UI with "assist" keybind, fighters who came in range of HH's 20K burst DPS would pop like soap bubbles. PS Btw "AI blades" by default should have no problem with synchronous targetng at all. This is another thing to concider when comapring to players crew. Not only humans need additional UI for that, they also should be trained to use it properly .

This "multicrew" against "AI" problem looks very very far fetched right now, comparing to the problem of current "stealth" mechanics )) Right now any multicrew ship can't do anything against attack from a number of "stealth" small ships with emissions like 1500 and weapon range 2600. Only available solution is to jump away.

8 Connies (rip corsair until AI blades) in PVE, npc crew will cost "daily money" making your mission income tanks. in PVP they will be not as good as normal players, and we will pick the best ratio "human per ship". (ex) for 100 peoples pvp battle i prefer 10 idris over 3 bengal 80 solo Connies over 10 npc crewed HH 20 medium fighters over 10 hurricane.

Fire rate nerf is just asinine.

If you have 7 players in hammerheads with NPCs though shouldn’t they win against 7 players in one ship? This isn’t honour duelling, committing 7 hammerheads requires an immense amount of resources and they’re also risking a lot more so shouldn’t the odds then be in their favour?

I have to say its because getting people together is not fun, but on top of that how many of us want to see fleets? Do you think we can achieve thwt with just player crews? How does this make the game more welcoming and inviting for smaller orgs? Don't make it less fun because its not players or unfair off of nonsense changes like less sheilds. It should be more resorce heavy, what is the point of stalking good food vs. bad or good habitation vs dirty uncomfortable habitation. This doesn't effect a player crew but npc yes it could. If my npc crew gets to upset could they steal my ship a strand me because i was a bad captain. Make the ships less effective or not fun with npc crew is weak sauce man come on give actual feed back or ideas to improve the game not balancing off of spreadsheets. Try suggesting new fun features that have benefits and consequences that ifbyou have player crew don't effect you as a advantage. Npc crew getting moody because all you have is dry food because you didn't want to hire a cook or because you didn't hire cleaners would be better than making it less fun.

It really does seem like all the people who love master modes really only love it because it upsets the people who dislike it. Ive got no dog in the race. I backed sc before we could even fly in a persistant world and has some major life changes so i hadnt had a chance to come back untill the past few weeks.

Maybe there should be a limited number of blade slots on a ship and we should only allow one NPC per player ... so a crew of four can have four more NPCs on board. Despite the clear expectations that CIG have unwisely given backers, big multi-crew ships probably should require a CREW ... but augmenting that player crew with NPCs definitely need to be accommodated, since they sold the ships with that expectation.

Well, one, its not a 10 second halo match. Two, death of a spaceman. Three, finding people worth a sht, and btw I was in my 20s when this game started and everyone i played with stopped playing this game a long time ago, is not a job i plan on partaking. Because i dont care about 'you and yours'. If the events come naturally in the process of me partaking in an orgs content then ill participate or if i find the content enjoyable. The game is fine. Its all this instant gratification dudes, eh hem, that try to take a game, i quite enjoy and not built by me but even more dudes whom feel the same way, and make it something its not and never will be. Thats just how it is.

Star Wars Galaxies had this problem and they never solved it. that's what i was worried about when they announced players can make their own EVERYTHING and upgrade them. that's a massive imbalance if they don't get it right.

"Balanced" It's an expensive ship meant Purely for Multi-crew combat. slow and cumbersome but with heavy shields and guns to make up for it. The main ones complaining about balance were probably solo players in things like Hornets, glads and Arrows annoyed they couldn't clap it immediately. I bought a Redeemer for Combat. But now? It has Less Shields and DPS Than my TAURUS. WHY IS A GUNSHIP WORSE THAN A GODDAMN CARGO HAULER YOU CAN GET FOR CHEAPER. Redeemer: Uses - Combat Cost - $330 Taurus: Uses - Cargo / Vehicle transport / Combat Cost - $200 As a Quick Edit: Why the F*** Do I care about 'Great handling' in what is essentially a space tank with 360 directional fire support. If I wanted a Ship that Handled well. I would have bought a cutlass or a single seater heavy Fighter.

I personally don't have the charisma of a cult leader and thus, will never be able to convince a real human to crew my ship. I need Ai.

whether anyone likes it or not.. I plan to play my Javelin, Idrrs, Polaris and other large multi crew ships SOLO .. with or without AI blades, etc.. It's a fucking game man.

As a business. I would rather sell more expensive ships than not. They are going to do AI Crew positions.

In Elite crew cost from 3-15%. And that is a salary, so they get paid a percentage of any money you make. My crew dude has taken 1.5 billion from me and I’ve used him maybe 200 times. Most of my gameplay is with real humans but npc gets a cut as long as I employ him. And humans are much better than npc at kills of course. So multi crew npc is a very expensive option for someone who really wants it but a much better are humans.

5 jet skis should not take down a multi crew coast guard boat. Right now in game they can

Great take, it's very tough to keep their promises when the premise of the game has changed. A lot of people spent thousands of dollars backing a game that they're not getting, and that really sucks if they don't like what we are getting. But you're absolutely right that NPC crews, as much as i myself want them for my own ship, have the potential to completely ruin PvP balance and multicrew viability. The hammerhead argument is a great one that I've used myself. Outside of Gunner seats, they might be fine though. NPC janitors, lunch ladies, and flight attendants are fine. The only solution have thought of so far is to intentionally make them bad at PvP. Like doing 90%+ less damage to player controlled ships. Not a great solution, but gives those backers something. Btw your take was so reasonable I went back and watched some of your other vids, thank you for the analysis on the redeemer nerfs too! Subscribed.

Also, i think blades should have some sort of leveling scheme. Rookie blades being poor quality and pro blades being just skilled enough to help a decent pilot get through some of the more difficult contracts. I think all of the top end end game pve should require actually having every crew member being a human.

Awesome take and unless I can think of a reason to not like it, I like it. Alot.

IIRC the original concept was NPC/AI were equivalents to bounty NPCs levels so lone wolves can do PvE content. A PvP crewed ship is going to have the upper hand since ships have blind spots by design. I agree that fighters not designed for anti-ship roles should be a suicide mission taking on larger multicrew ships. Easy way to fix that is relegate medium fighters down to no larger than S3 guns. Everything Heavy fighter and up have S4+. Give light fighters back a little speed so they are harder to hit up close but out ranged by ship turrets. Heavy fighters have the range and enough regular tank so they can guard bombers/Ares doing ship runs or attack turrets to draw fire off them. We kind of saw that play out in the Vega battle and they mentioned fleet battles will be setup where the all the roles will be needed. There is another factor to consider. Engineering, physicalized damage vs HP tank death, and fires. To do engineering and damage control it means a ship has to be very hard to kill to make that feasible. You can come after me with your Hammerheads full of spray and pray AI but my forces are going to focus fire your fuse boxes and power plants and turrets from blind spots or outranged by anti-ship units. I suppose you can live in a spacesuit and pound oxypens all day to mitigate fire unless it causes ships to freeze up and have problems too. Pilot can't hop out and run around to do damage control when the AI fuses pop. NPCs could but they still can't use a chair properly lol. People won't mind those roles if they are fun and the only way to get certain loot in those instanced areas server meshed onto the map. AI ship in theory would have a chance since its NPC content. It sounds like though the really good stuff is like EvE, you have to work together for the biggest rewards. Me personally I like variety of jobs to not get burned out. I own a Polaris but it was always intended for org play and I was close to melting it until I saw the SC 1.0 plan. Capitals are expensive to operate and paint a target on you and will be long claim times to recover them so when it's out you better be rolling heavy. According to the game files the Polaris is getting 7 automated point defense laser repeaters that were tested on the Bengal. I can't help but wonder how many ships will get those too eventually.

Great video.

Absolutely I want a ship with an NPC crew! I’d imagine the vast majority of players will want their own ship.

At this point they should just give all player manned turrets twice the damage output. They could scale it based on how many turrets the ship has. That way NPC's are still good, but if you have a friend in a turret they will be having a blast.

I like your base idea, but there is one thing i think also needs adressing: Protection from elements.

Amen brother

As someone who knows next to nothing about either model and is just casually following the game's development until it's playable, I'm much more convinced by A1s calm, rational explanation of geometry. Ironically, I only hear appeal to emotion and whining in this video? And what evidence is presented feels cherry-picked and misleading. The argument is that the 1000hr AC sweat beats you regardless of what system they use. The difference is how that skill is expressed. Correct me if I'm wrong but as a noob now, instead of knowing to tricord, I have to learn how best to switch between nav and combat mode mid fight to gain an advantage? Why is an artificial speed limit and knowing 3 different modes of travel more intuitive than realistically simulating a 3d vector in space? To the 90% of gamers who don't already play flight sims, it's all pretty equally foreign, we're just waiting for a larger reason to play the game.

Thanks for the videoo, it was very helpful.

Operational costs. Fuel costs will munch up credits so fielding many ships. This won't cure multicrew but mentioning it regardless.

As a solo player I’d find it really cool if I could hire crew for things like an extra gunner or maybe an ai to help mine in the mole something like that would be cool as I’ve always wanted to play with a full crew but all my friends hate the game with a passion 😂

Great insight and well presented, well done 🤘

How is it that a game in 2024 looks about as good as an engine that came out in 1999 (FS2, with fans modifying the engine obviously)? I'm stunned that the SC and SQ42 devs have focused so little on the actual in-flight gameplay, graphics and mechanics and so much more on everything else. Mind boggling.

Playing together should be rewarded. Period.