Why can’t they have both the new power manage system and the old quick power triangle? The quick power triangle ONLY effects power that is in the weapons, shields, and guns. The new slower screen allows you to access power management to include other systems as well. One would be a quick in solo combat system and the other would either be out of combat or would incentivize multi-crew power management
@@Jjorn It is quick but you always have your power at max for weapons, shields and engines where before the default power distribution was right in the middle of all things. So you could give MORE power to weapons, shields or engines for added benefits making you able to get the upper hand in dogfights.
@@Jjorn ye it is quick but there is no choise you just put everything at 100% and call it a day and in live one you have 100 points to distribute beetween 3 systems so there was decision making involved with fighting do i was my engines work better ? or mayby i need a "boost" to my shield ? that was another layor of fight. I was sure flying gonna get more complex as the game develop but its look like its getting more simplistic
@@Avean I think the thought behind the new power management system isn't to make the gameplay more engaging while the ship is in mint condition, but to help mitigate damage that you will endure when you're a 10 minute flight from the nearest repair center and you just pulled your ship out of a battle you really shouldn't have been in and you're leaking coolant, your engines are spitting fire and lost half you wing.
My problem with CIG is, they already took our money and failed to realize this dream vision over so many years. Now they try to appeal to different crowd to get the money from.
100% i backed the game in 2012 and backed it because of what was promised and at this point they have taken those promises and turned the game into an Arcade mode flight model they are trying to make the game like Starfield... the current flight model is hot garbage.
We need a clear statement what this game is meant to be, is it gonna be an arcade, something in between or a space sim. So that people can decide and make up their minds if they want to be apart or continue supporting the project. Because if this is meant to be a casual arcade, then I think many of us will look for something else with more depth and a higher skill ceiling. At some point the "accessibility" has to stop. Where is the line? When we reach mobile gaming levels of simplicity?
Arcade does not in any way mean easy, and the game has never attempted to be realistic. None of CRs games were. It is Star Wars-esque WW2 planes in space. Always has been. A realistic space combat game would be an RTS, not a flight sim.
Pretty sure people can make up their own mind about whether they want to keep playing a game and don’t need the developer to input on that decision. Right now it just seems like people want to constantly whine and bitch like a Karen on heat as loud and long as they can. If You don’t like it…..DONT Play it
To be fair, I think the community has been asking the point of multicrewed ships for a long time. Good to see that CIG still haven't figured that out themselves even as they push more multicrewed ships into the game. I think my irritation at these whole scale combat changes happening this year is that they are trying to force on the sq42 combat here. Which is really odd considering how long the combat system we had prior was on the ptu. And without going through regression testing of it on ptu before cementing it into sq42, have decided to cement it into sq42 and tell everyone on ptu to deal with it. Which is counter to their story of ptu testing systems for sq42.
I think part of the solution is to add to the complexity of waste heat management. For instance if we tien off the coolers our ships become more stealthy, but heat will start to build up quicker as it isn't being removed. Smaller ships have lower mass to surface area and would therefore have lower loitering time at default settings, but would be able to get back into the fight much faster then a large ship which would in turn have a higher looter time. We should have the option to eject superheated matter, in the form of a disposable heat sink, creating a massive Ir spike in the area, but possibly obscuring the ship itself. Each individual component may also have a preferred operating temperature, and work better within that specific range, rewarding engineering teams which can effectively manage these things. These ranges should vary based on components. And that's just heat management.
Having not gotten my hands on any of these changes yet, all I can assume is that the power management in anything large enough will need to be controlled by a co-pilot or engineer during combat, likely being the difference that hopefully negates the advantage fighter ships have in speed and maneuverability. The rest should come from the eventual implementation of the maelstrom system. I love flying my Connie in battle, but I've always understood that if going into pvp, or even certain pve situations, I'm going to need at least a small wing of fighters swatting the flies from my behind. That said, fighter pilots should still have a rudimentary system such as the power triangle. I'm pretty sure the balancing won't end up as bad as many fear, as people panic far too often to any change.
i can wait for a copilot to redirect the shields "live" so to become basically invincible to a single fighter running circles. literally talking shield regen>dps. it would finally put multicrew on the map, if just two people can move shield and ship around to negate the mobility advantage of the fighters
Because a more complicated systems and subsystems management system is less realistic and more arcade, right? Any excuse for your deluded peanut brain to whine...
Probably too busy counting the money, every single time anyone asks him anything he screams "quiet that noise, I lost count and now I have to start again!"
All these changes convince me Chris purposely breaks things to add to delay and tedium, in turn he gets to keep printing money with new shiny jpegs. He has a conflict of interest to deal with. We all see it...there is no incentive to finish the game...that is a clear FACT...he makes more money that way.
Nothing in this post ist correct. It's not arcade. It's never been promised in any way. And you are just too lame to adopt to a change. A good one BTW.
You still can, just not in this patch. That is coming in 4.0; 3.24.2 was given partial implementation of 4.0 features so they could pre-solve server deadlocks, crashes, and errors as part of the 4.0 code branch before some of the big ticket 4.0 items are brought into the game. The MFDs were back-ported but not all of the feature sets associated with the MFDs (i.e., resource management) came with it.
yeah and it won't go away, it's just that engineering presets (and the ability to cycle between them) is tied to 4.0. So it's awkward in 3.24.2 but that's only temporary.
I don't get it. You can move the pips around with keybinds, stick assignments or even voice attack. It doesn't seem much different to the triangle and actually takes more skill imo since you have to make your power allocations within the energy budget. The argument about pay to win seems a bit spurious as well. A more expensive component should be better at its job than the cheaper variety. I don't mind grinding to get better components. It gives the player a mini goal to shoot for.
i agree with the pay to win part. We have been waiting for good components to mean something forever, what i dont like is that it seems like a good component makes it so you lose the ability to power manage, because everything is gonna be at 100% all teh time and thats it
@@aguspuig6615 I think there should be some kind of drawback for having more total power brick, like overheating of the power plant how more frequent failures
@@aguspuig6615 Yeah, I was working under the assumption that no power plant would give you enough pips to be able to set everything to max. I thought there would always be a few pips short of a full house even with the best units. If you can max everything then I agree with you. It all becomes a bit pointless in that case.
I think the lego block management is better, I dont want to mess with power when in a fighter, but thats just my low skill opinion, what happened to the "power presets" they said would come with this change? wouldnt that accomplish the same thing as the triangle? when in a multicrew, i still dont want to mess with power, id rather delegate that to my engineer guy or co pilot or whatever, i will say though i dont like how you have to scroll side to side to see all the blocks
horizontal slider is terrible and I cannot fathom that anyone could've actually thought "yes people will love the horizontal slider and will definetely not be extremely angry when they have to give up control of their ship completely in the middle of combat just to mess with a few sliders"
Once cap ships are in Star Fighters will be relegated to background noise as it should be. At this rate you should switch to Overwatch 2 tho u probably won’t get past 1000sr with those boomer reflexes 😂
Hay A1. I agree with to on this from a pilots perspective.The power triangle gave players the options of managing where/what needed priority during flight. It was a good system for flight. It should still be there. The NEW surety is for engineering. It will allow you to stop power to specific components for maintenance or spec out for specific purposes. You sure as hell don't want to be messing with this new system during a fight! That will get you killed. I think both should be used. One for desired setup and maintenance, and the other for flight.
Its actually good if you know how to set up binding. You can now move power from weapons too shields without taking power from engines. with two buttons on my HOTAS
exactly, and it will only get better once engineering presets come with 4.0 since you'll be able to very carefully map not jsut 3 component types but all to any kind of preset and toggle/cycle between them (in other words, a more advanced, deeper kind of power triangle with more player agency.... that is to say the exact opposite to what A1 seems convinced is happening).
I mapped the old power triangle to one of my four-way hats on my HOTAS stick. Left click was one pip to weapons, right click was one pip to shields and one click down was one pip to engines. Middle press was reset pips to default. Now, where most may not know, in the power management menu under key binds, you can long press to set max levels. So, if I long press left, I go max pips to weapons, long press right to max shields and long press down to go max to engines. You would be pleasantly surprised just how intuitive it is to move energy reserves around these ship systems. Now, from what I understand in the new build with the new MFDs, you can actually still do this. You have key binds for single pip allocation to weapons, shields and engines. You can also, still long press to max out that system. I don't know doing so now removes pips from other ship systems, and if so from which systems does it allocate those pips from. For me, as long as I can still use my four-way hat to allocate pips by touch then I'll be happy.
@@Bronwyn031 I have the exact same 4-hats mapping on 3.24.1 I think MFD keybinds are still being added, but in .2 I initially did not find equivalent bindings (but will give it another try). Pretty sure we'll retrieve that ability with engineering presets in any case.
I personally like this power system because, since the most recent ptu update, you no longer have enough power to max out all bars, this actually gives co-pilots a reason to exist, since now they can reroute power to whichever is needed most in battle.
We don't even have the full system yet. They split this system in half and we won't get the other half of it until 4.0. As such I have a hard time judging its effectiveness or uselessness. The key things that will make or break this new system in my mind are: - The ability to repair and swap components - Engineer level power management and presets - The balance of shields, armor, and component damage instead of HP Until this is all introduced (like was originally supposed to happen) it will be hard to actually see if these changes have any meaning. They still need to provide a way for us to determine and compare component stats IN GAME! All I can really do for now is tell them if the interface is clunky but honestly they need to hurry and give us the entire engineering and new ship damage system so we can give them the actual useful feedback. NOTE: One thing I think would be really useful to have implemented is the coordination between the pilot and co-pilot. Can I tell my co-pilot to take over evasive maneuvers while I deal with something on the MFD's? Can we swap who's flying and who's shooting without changing seats? That's what I envision when someone says co-pilot and to me it's the difference between a co-pilot and a weapons officer (as I believe they are called).
I should have reinforced that in my comment: we're just having half of the system and that's maybe why it is not working as planned, explained and showed from the last 2 ISC.
im realy getting very tired of hearing "its not complete yet" ... i understand that this is active development, but cant they just finish one system and then move to the next? everything is half broken all the time and then replaced with the next half broken thing... cant see any competence here and losing trust really describes what i'm feeling these days.
I get what you're all saying. The stuff keeps coming out in pieces, but the later pieces never seem to make it out of concept. I hope this (4.0) doesn't end up being another 3.23 situation
This has to be one of the hardest issues for me to have an opinion. On one hand, I absolutely agree with you and want MORE player agency, not less. Having the pilot's decisions affect the combat is paramount to having a working game. On the other hand, I absolutely hate power management in combat. If this was anything else, I'd be 100% on board. But for some reason trying to manage power in the midst of combat is one of the most jarring things to me and I try to avoid it at all costs.
I agree that the power managment in the middle of a fight quite often is a source for frustration (for me anyways). But at the same time it adds that little extra agency and edge that I want to be in control of - with a simple intuative GUI. I do not always fully agree with @Avenger_One - but on this video I agree with him 100%.
Power management in combat could give you that slight advantage you needed to tip a fight in your favour (PvP or PvE). It was easy to press a function key or joystick binding to add a bit more power to weapons if you needed the extra damage or recharge, you could add more boost recharge if you needed to disengage or pick up speed, or increase your shield recharge if they were getting low. Now, doing those things is counter productive, as there's not an intuitive way of receiving feedback, not an intuitive way of controlling it, and trying to find information on any of your power settings means you have to look at a tiny screen that even has a horizontal scrollbar on it - an UX crime. The power management was actually there before (you could control individual systems and components) but the power management you needed (the power triangle for combat) was separated and intuitive to use.
Yep. The pink haired girl is absolutely the one who must feel comfort in combat sim game... Your opinion is for sure more important then opinions of hundreds of players who trained for months. DCS < Arcade
I think you should maybe look at this video again. They have implemented a ton of keys for the MFD to allow you to set so that you can adjust power management even while in combat in the PTU.
I dont know when sitting in a dedicated fighter it makes sense to have full power to all fighting relevant systems, but lets say you sit in something like a terrapin which is a data link and information ship(basically awacs) its more sensible to put points in your sensors and ew systems also running in something like a sabre you might not want to be a funky ball of energy output then there is the thing with battle damage if your generator is damaged or not in mint condition because youre already in space for quite a while this might effect your power output, i am more curious to where this is going then to where it is on its maiden day
Yes and no the power Triangle is gone or as you say set and forget it. If you look down in the Menus you will find keyboard keybinds for the different power and they do work even when the power mfd not up. So you can still change the power levels on the fly just going to need to have Device that has a lot of available buttons
I would get behind the removal of the power triangle if it came in exchange for something. Like imagine if they just created alot of weapon types, and balanced them, in such a way that being able to ''overclock'' your guns would break the game, and they needed to simplify that side of the game to add complexity when it comes to picking weapons. The problem for me is that that isnt the case, i had finally gotten used to tweaking my power settings on the fly and bam, they just take it away...
yeah it sucks, I use the PT all the time. but what A1 didn't remember is that engineering presets are also supposed to come in 4.0, when the resource network gameplay will actually release. that will mean mapping your own favourite power settings outside of combat, for each ship you care about and have the ability to toggle them on/off or cycle during combat. And share them with friends/org mates. it'll be on a ship by ship basis, so you can have your favourite settings for racing, combat, etc.
I am looking forward to engineering. The problem is lots of fighter pilots not even the PvP ones voiced concerns with getting bogged down managing engineering and combat. Because they use systemic software architecture everything has to work consistently with little granularity or maintain 2 completely isolated system end to end and only change both at the same time doubling work and potential bugs from unintended side effects. What they basically did was made fighter sized power plants be able to power most or all your power bricks, so you never have to deal with it. This system now has little impact on ships with single power plants. If you have 2 power plants and lose 1 and all its allocations is when you need to start really shuffling power in a hurry which is more a bigger ship issue. The triangle was just a ratio slider. Maybe they could just do a ratio centered around whatever levels you have in allocations. Averaging 3 integers is trivial CPU work. Or give more units than you can allocate, and that extra pool can be slid around but is raises heat 'stressing' the relays with that bonus juice if you ride it too much out of neutral. So you get a base allocation and a sliding pool on top with any extra power and more over the base setting more heat/wear. I have the ultimate fix for fighter's vs multicrew ships; make it a death sentence to engage the larger ones. Fighters can move about 150ms faster across the board but are capped at S3 guns and S5 missiles sans the Ares and fighter bombers that get bespoke anti ship weapons. Bombers need tank and less agility than fighters but barely more agility than multicrew ships like the Broadsword bomber in WC. Multicrew are S4-6 only with faster turrets so all fighters can do is chuck missiles or find a blindspot and lack the speed/agility to chase fighters without its own fighters. Caps S7+ and just make range the fence for s m l ships.
This new power distribution screen is completely focused on dedicated engineering gameplay, and will work very well for an engineer to manage on a full screen display. However, you are not overreacting at all. This system has no business being applied to a fighter cockpit, and has no useful function during combat. We've lost all ability to quickly shunt power to a necessary system in an emergency situation. If they want to fix this? Leave the new system to multi-crew ships, and bring back the triangle for fighters.
@Avenger__One: you guys are aware of the "engineering presets" right? That system that will allow players to make meaningful choices in combat to affect outcomes (and in ALL other scenarios that this game is also about). Right? Because that's the elephant in the room for the entire video here. How it works is that you will set your favorite power settings in advance, for specific ship roles and for any number of scenarios you care about, then you'll be able to save them from patch to patch, share them with friends (or people taking your combat courses), and of course, map them to your HOSAS. That's "set and forget", in the sense that you don't need to fiddle with precise settings during combat (which would make no sense), but it's also an active system, because you'll cycle or toggle different presets dynamically, exactly like you'd do with the power triangle. Only that you'll have more depth vs now, not less, because you'll be able to tweak how you use coolers, radar, batteries etc. and not just thrusters shields and weapons. So, you'll retrieve the SAME philosophy as the power triangle, but with MORE player agency, and much deeper customization. TL:DR: Chill out, I get the concern but this time it is genuinely a false alarm. Just check the recent ISC on engineering, you'll be reassured.
The problem IMO with light fighters kiting hammerheads to death as I saw it was that a size 1 gun can eventually bring down what is supposed to be an armoured behemoth. Armor and armor penetration should matter hugely. Missiles are ridiculously underpowered vs IRL. Think of 1 Spitfire vs a dreadnought in WW2, a big missile should be its only chance to do any serious damage, it would be very limited as to how many it could carry and the dreadnought would have defences. Instead they've taken a flight system that was emperically very enjoyable and hamstrung it, and are continuing to make it worse assumedly to appease people who probably couldn't care either way.
I spent a few hours sitting in the hangar on Orison just swapping in and out size 1, 2 and some size 3 components across a couple dozen ships, seeing what happens, turning things off and on, etc. This version, which is also pre-resource network exposure, is a tier 0 thing. Looking at the signatures feedback request, it looks like they are trying to set it up so that there is a risk associated with choosing certain component types, in that you can end up with really big signatures in relatively small ships - suggesting they want to lean more into missile load outs and game play. imho I think they are trying to set it up so that missile pressure forces smaller ships into ranges where multi-crew turrets are effective. Okay, sure, but I don't think it's going to play out that way. The new HUD has more ew than ahhh operationally, aesthetically they are nice until you see that real bright light.... It also feels like they want you to be able to fly a ship with a controller, the interaction wheel, etc., all feels like console game interface and interaction. I'm not big into PvP and AC and I don't dogfight a lot. I don't really think these changes are "for you" and they are, in fact, iteratively introducing more multi-crew systems. We'll have to see what the new component and signature management effects do with missiles, I think that is something that would make for a great stream for content. But there is a really long way to go to get to something that is immersive, deep, entertaining and has an approachable skill floor and a meaningful skill ceiling. The movement of agency to simplify inputs is going to create an arcade game. I know they are going to be making the higher end components loot rewards to encourage diversifying game play and starting to hopefully drive a player market, and there are more interconnections between game systems and game loops being introduced. The incredible complexity in SC as software and engineering is really substantial, and they are sticking to Gall's Law in some areas, and less so in others, and that is really starting to show. I don't always agree with you, but I appreciate your lens as we play the game different ways for different reasons and enjoy what we get from it, including when we happen to run into each other and "exchange play styles" :D
TBH i don't think any player feedback is been taken in to consideration by CIG lately, apart of some rare cases when the feedback aligns with CIGs intentions anyway.
needing multiple people to squeeze any potential of of larger ships is the point of a lot of these changes c.i.g wants the focus to change to larger ships instead of smaller ships. also slowing down combat was the "balance to this" they want smaller ships to move slow enough so that the larger ships can kill them more easily .
The problem here is this doesn't even fix that issue the issue with large ships not being able to kill smaller ship has always been do to weapon balancing there no difference in range form size 1 - 10 weapons so most fights start are 1200m so the smaller ship is harder to hit and with the large ships having no speed to either close distances or chase small ships nothings going to change
@@dougelick8397 They have been talking about these systems since 2014. By now people shoudl know what they signed up for, and this was always on the cards -- Chris Roberts prattled on about engineering and multi-crewing in this design scope for ages.
@@RedFifteenSIIS015 Yes it will, because small ships (post 4.0) will not be able to damage larger ships unless they can punch through the armour and specifically damage components. At 2,400 metres out, how is a small ship front-facing a Carrack going to do any damage whatsoever? The size 1 - 3 weapons will just tickle it. Meanwhile, due to the small size of the interceptor/snub/light fighter, the Carrack will be able to do massive damage since smaller craft will have all of their components tightly knit together -- doubly so for weapons that do splash damage. It will be very difficult for small craft to take down larger craft with the new component focus on 4.0, and the extircation of getting a pop based on HP pools.
I'm hoping we can eventually use the presets to replace the in combat power management system the triangle use to give us. Or we at least can have a hat switch set to do what elite dangerous did where shifting power to weapons would remove segments from one of the other two but you also had a reset button which most would press before shifting power to one of the three main areas. One good thing about presets could be that you could even have one for say retreating where you only divert power to rear shields (on certain ships) and the rest to engines etc etc ;)
Something that annoys me with the removal of the power mini game we've had, is that those 4 buttons we had are now most likely gonna get replaced by 4 new functions that no one has asked for...
*I like it better this way.* I always thought doing on-demand power tuning as a pilot was stupid and it's much more fun to come up with power allocation "builds" beforehand and then use skill to playing to the strength of what you created rather than being able to just do with it whatever you want whenever you want. It's lame and too easy that way.
I believe they're more focused on multi crew ships. That and CIG's tendency to copy/past EVERYTHING. Making single pilot ships suffer. With multi crew ships, The engineer can adjust power management on the fly as needed. But single seat fighters should have power management system that functions like the old method just with the newer UI. It's hard to say if it's just an oversight of CIG, procrastination preventing them from doing it right the first time, or narrow minded game dev's unable to forsee how the changes they make affect other ships/play styles.
It’s become super obvious to me that the changes CIG has and are still making to the flight model is to make dog fighting more accessible to a wider range of players, especially with the new power management system. What you’re referring to here as a set it and forget it direction exemplifies this completely. I think the current PMS worked very well for me and use it consistently when dog fighting, finding it an integral part of succeeding, using the choices I have to move power around accordingly on the fly. If what I am to understand here is that I now will have to look down at a screen and search functions to manage power, this does not seem helpful. Dumbing the game down might get more players involved in the short term but like you said, people will get bored fast because of the low skill ceiling. Even though I am certainly not a great dog fighter, I still love it and have fun engaging because I know there is so much yet to learn and get better doing. I totally underestimated the level of skill needed to be good at a game like this and have come to respect all those who are considered elite tremendously. It’s those great dog fighters that provide the incentive to compete and get better. I don’t need or want it to be easy, even in my older age. I haven’t played with the new changes yet but am looking forward so to give some kernel of feedback.
I only had the chance to test PTU in my Reclaimer, as it is basically my home ship and want to test it extensively. In big ships like that, the new power management makes sense, as you are supposed to have at least another crew member. This feels much more like classic Sci-Fi were the captain asks the crew to set energy one way or another, I love it. But I can't stop thinking about when I'm gonna take my F7A out and will not be able to change power on the fly, and I see it's exactly what you complain about. Solo ship should have a much simpler system, power triangle was perfect for that. Not even mentioning the fact that energy to weapons now affects turret capacitors, which seems logical but will clearly nerf some ships like reclaimer or HH, which don't rely on pilot weapons.
Haven´t tried the new MFDs in general and the new power settings in particular myself yet. But i do not want to have a bunch of new keybindings for every setting. All i need is an EASY way to navigate through the MFD pages and inside a given MFD page, eg. power management, which should allow me to use just a 4-way hat switch on a joystick to alter the settings. If i cannot manipulate settings easy in stressful situations, i will probably end up pants down - no matter if it is combat or mining or whatever.
I don’t understand how the new systems different. Is it because more powerful components let you max everything rather than choosing where to apply power? I haven’t had an opportunity to try the new system yet.
I agree with you but I want to hear specifics along the lines of things that are planned, not about trust. The important thing is how the problem you see can be solved. Maybe armor, larger shield components being stronger, and higher turret turn rates will give big ships more of an advantage, but that's purely speculation as a non-combatant. Also in the current gameplay, ships are just HP pools that die when they reach zero. After resource networks and armor are implemented, being able to land hits on components is how you would take down large ships.
it's normal to break old stuff when releasing new stuff so often ... the problem is we're in the complete darkness as to why they choose to break the cool stuff and why they deliver the not so cool stuff
For compatibility, progression and accessibility. The old system didn't work with engineering (among other things), nor group play (dividing up screens for different things). Now that can devote those screens piece meal if they want and provide user security around them if need be for all sorts of things (Group roles, authorization, etc). They also said they were not done with the helmet casting options and there would be more. Furthermore, on the progression front, if they allow you to have the most optimal performance now, or its easy to get where would the progression or grind be? Additionally, if they want wide adoption, controller support, and potentially deliver to consoles, they have to change how much of that worked. Does that make sense?
They told us why: resource management. The 3.24.2 implementation feature is only a partial implementation of what is coming with 4.0 and the full resource management system, where you will be able to modify and save and load presets, which they talked about during ISC.
You ever take your car in for a oil change, and they break the transmission, or the air conditioner? You ever go home smiling about it? Call it normal?
Which comes back to communication doesn't it, they have the platform but so many things they treat it like it's a huge wonderful surprise for us. Core thing like this now I feel they need to be more open with their intentions sooner, simply saying this is the X and Y goals by the end. Atm we only have vague hand wavy goals so how the hell are we to judge if this is their final implementation or they have a bunch more to work on. Share some more detailed plans early before spending months of work on something the community will pick up a pitch fork for as it's against what was promised/implied/imagined or not what is best for the game if receiving feedback earlier in the process
To me it looks like Master Modes was always just a prelude to the power system, the combat and nav modes are just swapping the power to the correct spaces in the new and improved power bank system. They're just presets like "combat" and "nav" with the pips put in the places to activate said systems
what about a dogfighting master mode, available only on ships specified exclusively for combat? it gives you everything, full altimeter, power triangle meant for combat, compressed hud information in the center when you shoot yada yada. as I see it, would mostly only be on smaller ships/fighters. bigger ships don't really need it as their workload is supposed to be split into multiple specific roles/players. currently we treat master modes like when you're not in nav mode you're in combat which isn't necessarily the case for like 70% of ships. i don't see a problem with just giving combat its own specific master mode with its own UI tools to help you in that scenario.i don't care about seeing guns and enemy health and shields and altitude and gsafe necessarily when I'm just doing mining or salvage.
Power management was one of the most interesting gameplay elements in your ship, and their implementation of it was close to perfect for on the fly decision making. Dumbfounding decision to mess with it this much.
Agree about player agency part. Adding stats to craftable items is literally the opposite of what they said they wanted. They said they didnt want to create a meta game where the guns with the best stats wins over skills. But theyve done exactly that.
you can still put power to different things. There are presets for power management that you can keybind. Nothing is changing basically except now components have more meaning again.
I am curious about the motivation behind the simplification of these systems that have been put in over the years, I can only conclude a few good reason why. 1) To decrease variables, and reduce the breaking parts within the system. And to streamline the process of tracking data between client and server. 2) To reduce the toolset that hackers have to manipulate the resulting outcome of any situation they decide to take advantage over.
I'm hoping when it comes to power management that we have some hot keys for shifting things down the road for single-seater ships. For larger ships, I like that you might have someone that handles power management and/or engineering. As for CIG's response to feedback... that's what really has me worried. They have been outright draconian on the forums when it comes to ANY sort of criticism. Bans, or having your post moved to the graveyard has become the norm for almost anything that isn't glowing praise of CIG. Nightrider and Kobold in particular act rather scummy.
Are we missing something? I can't believe CIG is destroying game mechanics like this.. It has to be an interim shutdown of the system before it's brought back better than ever, right??? The Power Triangle was an ingenious implementation to introduce even more skill-based decisions in dogfighting... I remember it properly coming into the game (It was redundant for a long time despite existing) and I loved it from the get-go when it was actually made useful. In past dogfights I could tell when I'm fighting someone and they don't have their shields hardened to defend against me.. I can make mistakes and not have my shields hardened when the enemy seems to be pulling out but instead they bluff and commit and I pay the price for a second... It's added squares on the chess board. I see no reason why we can't have both systems here, because at this point we're just taking a fleshed out combat system and I dunno... Making the game worse? Weird.... I hope CIG don't take the power triangle assignment system and ignore it ever existed.. That would be a significant mistake.
In live, I'm guessing you have bound the triangle so you can switch things up mid flight. However you can still do this in mid flight with the new system. You create these settings first and save them as a set bind. The initial skill is finding the best components for your flying style. In turn you can then fine tune the power management and set them to set binds.. want more guns and shields? Bind it. What more shields and thrust? Set it and bind it.. this is no different from the current live triangle.. pretty sure you wouldn't sit there mid combat playing with the triangle, you just chuck it somewhere in the middle or the extremes.. you can still do that.. ? Just my two cents :) good vid though, informative as always :)
I don't think people realize that 4.0 is not release this patch is not released none of this is final there have been major changes that were reverted for years it was too forward one back so freaking out about this is like people who freaked out about the cost of quintanium last week
Great video again, and i agree they should have kept the power triangle as another screen on the HUD, along side the new stuff. I would think that this would help multi-crew ships as a quick way to adjust power when in combat. Also I thought we'll be able to save the state of the power bars and recall then via a keybind.
Th recent raft of changes since MM have been more and more frustrating. When MM was released, power management was one of the only tools we were left with to differentiate between pilots at the higher skill levels. Now that has been taken away as well. It feels like CIG is trying to create a model where anyone can hop in and be competitive at the highest levels on day one. I am all for creating a flight model that is easy to approach and learn, but it should not be possible to master flight combat in a few days. Challenge and growth are what make these systems interesting. No one would be playing games like CS or MMOs like WoW if there was no skill progression or mechanical depth. I really hope CIG revises the flight model before the game becomes Euro Truck Simulator in space.
I have development fatigue. So much has changed and I have no idea what the end goal is anymore. This started as a modernized wing commander online sorta thing, and now it's... I have no clue. So, I dunno how to assess if this is a good or bad change because I dunno wtf this even is anymore, and no one in a position to know is trying to articulate that in a cogent manner. All I know is I've thrown waaaay too much money at something that no longer makes sense to throw money at. So, I won't.
At least they're working on your focus. I'm intending to mostly do search and rescue, so there's not an awful lot of use for me in the game yet. My ships are the Apollo and SRV. An ambulance that's not done yet, and a tow truck that has nothing to tow.
Hi ! Awesome content, as usual. On this specifi topic, I really think that the main issue here is " should a military ship have the same MFD a civilian / industrial ship has ?" It feels logic for an airbus to have that amount of controls over the plane, but on a fighter jet you have a very different interface. One system simply cannot deliver it all. It must be differenciated. Love your commitment to our game. O7
I must agree. We will be losing a lot of control throughout the games development. The free comfort/luxury life will be severely reined in. Any who, we do need dynamic power delivery on the fly. What percentage of players are fighter pilots in the game? I'm guessing way less then 50% of the player base. That would explain why CIG wants to make stepping into combat flight easier. But agree, combat flight skills need to be a key factor and there for the game needs complexity in flight and management, but in a way that doesn't kill entry level fighters will to play. It looks like that the current model is going to be the base model, and we are just testing it. Not to state the obvious.
I wish good components were something like StarSector hull modifications. Were instead of just ''more power'' its specific stuff, like ''you lose shields but double your armor, meaning you get more power to weapons but you are less manouverable'' or stuff like that, the simple ''more expensive bigger number'' cant be all there is imo
I haven't played with the PTU jet but I could see power management would become passive and I have a problem with passive power management. I also keep using active power management during combat.
Cit-Con '24 is going to be make or break personally. If I don't like what I hear, or they aren't clear on the direction of the game and where they are taking it, I will be selling my fleet. It's been a wild ride, but they've made so many bad decision lately and I cannot see how or why they have made those choices if they are serious about making the best space sim ever. It's really sad, but I've lost so much faith in CIG and their vision for SC, given their recent choices. I don't lay the blame for this with the developers themselves, rather the senior management team. I'd really like some honesty from them. I think as backers, we are owed that much. We shared the vision and we put our money were our mouth was, some more than others, but we all put our hand in our pockets to help make the vision a reality. Now it seems like the vision we were sold is off the table and they're slowly pulling a bait and switch. From a deeply technical, rewarding, skill based game, to a bland, generic, slog-fest, with invisible walls and obstacles to 'manage the fun'. I hope I'm wrong, I really want SC to be the great game we know it could be, but the signs are troubling and it's hard to ignore the lack of engagement with the community from CIG over the concerns we have. Thanks for your content. o7
Cig doesn't give a fuck or feel like they owe us anything. They already got the money. Try going on spectrum and giving any opinion other than "wow this is great and we trust you" and see how fast meatrider or some other loser bans you. They are happy to ban unhappy customers and continue doing whatever the fuck it is they're doing now. This ship has sailed and we won't be seeing the game that we already paid for. Oh well, that's just how Chris Roberts the scammer does it, go look at his game dev history. He's a failure
All of these recent, "pre 4.0" changes are only succeeding in making the game more pay-to-win. This used to be an (unfounded) criticism but player agency and mechanical skill prevented that in the past. If all it takes for trolls to log in to the game and meme on PvE players is for them to buy Bucc with real $ or in-game money you can probably just buy off a gold seller site... Well, I wonder what the answer to that problem would be? Pilot skill level grinding? Ultra-Expensive rare components for more money? Surely not re-introducing player skill as the games progression mechanic.
yeah, I briefly tried to get the hotkeys for power management to work last night and quickly realized I didn't have enough time to figure it out.... I'm also not really having fun with the current changes...i'm not excited to play anymore.
Hold up a sec, you kind of contradicted yourself. You said the lego blocks are based on the quality of components your ship has. That's not pay to play. That's play to play. You can't buy components on the pledge store. The expensive ships on the store are always equipped with the cheap grade C components, which is BS frankly, but they are. So to put good components on your ship, with better output or more damage resistance, you have to earn aUEC to buy them, which means you have to play the game to earn aUEC. That's play to play. Edit - just saw a different video from the PTU showing how components have been returned to variable stats for all their performance measures - i.e. not all identical the way they are now. This was announced very clearly by CIG, as their intention, the "normalized" components were a stopgap until they came up with what they wanted. I guess they came up with what they wanted. So assignment of power to components will be a lot more complex now, and more of a hangar thing than a heat of battle thing. It's been made a lot more complex, not less complex. That's adding player agency, not removing it.
1:32 - "We've gone from an active system that you adjust in combat on the fly to a passive system that has essentially become a set and forget." 8:41 - "But the problem is, there's no switching these power settings around meaningfully (...) in combat in the current state..." I thought you were going to provide more information for WHY you specifically feel this way (because I'm not able to test it yet). Why NOT adjust power settings on the fly? What meaningful element is lacking regarding the power settings? i.e. Does the system feel too power saturated as-is? Should there be less "lego blocks" available to use? Do components not feel choked enough when power gets diverted elsewhere?
This. Based purely on the video just now, it looks like he has enough "lego blocks" to power everything all at the same time. Is the future intention to limit the number of blocks so you need to choose where power goes? That seems like the "player agency" we would be looking for, right?
@@auburn8833 Thanks for your first point, being able to max power all of the fighter components does sound boring. Regarding your 2nd point, there is an up keybind and down keybind for each component in the new power system.
I feel like the Power Management system is actually...half of the equation? Like your Power Management sets your Minimums and Maximums - but you still need something like the Power Triangle for those on-the-fly decisions. The Power Triangle enforced decisions like 'Redirect power to shields while I'm on the backfoot' or to engines to regen boost more quickly in a lull. Power Management seems like something you set beforehand to define your limits, and then you need a mechanism to 'wiggle between' with something like the power Triangle. I think about Star Wars Squadrons where you allocate power to weapons, or to your rear shield, etc. - Like the new Power Management system, it was visually represented on the UI by bars/columns - but it was still intuitively shifting a constrained number of 'blocks' to the situation at hand. But in the new system, your weapons are always at 8 blocks, and if you have a pure advantage over someone and they're running away, you can't just...jack up to 12 weapon blocks at the cost of your shields. At least not until we have something like 'overclocking' (another cool Squadrons mechanic). It might also just be that Power Plants need tuning and you should never be able to have max blocks in 2 things at once. The power allocation is also a lot less intuitive - as it requires an on-screen interaction. We'll find ways to hotkey these things, and maybe the answer is in the various profiles you can swap between (Press 1 for full weapons, half shields, etc) - but then that's the Triangle with extra steps and a ridiculous number of profiles to manage for different ships with different power plants, etc. We're missing a lot of the pieces - but in the current implementation (which is the only thing we can comment on in an informed manner) it feels worse in moment-to-moment combat. We lack component weights affecting speeds - where sacrificing the biggest most expensive plant in favor of a lighter one might offer more maneuverability. We lack clarity (beyond Erkul mining) on how the various classes and grades of components will impact outputs. It might get to a point where the ideal interceptor loadout uses a lightweight D civilian shield Generator to power Grade A weapons and thrusters and its 'stack of legos' becomes much more constrained for those more meaningful decisions. In PTU I was flying an avenger with a crap power plant and I straight up could not maximize my weapons and shields at the same time - ironically that made it far more interesting. Maybe the secret sauce is weight, component health, etc. Right now things like Pitch, Yaw, Roll, SCM speed, acceleration, etc. are all defined based on ship-you-bought. If those can be meaningfully affected by components, and the components that give more lego blocks sacrifice those values, suddenly ship-build-crafting becomes a lot more interesting. CIG often say the community gives feedback because they only have a small part of the overall picture- and I'm not advocating "HAVE FAITH!" - but there are still a LOT of pieces missing from resource management and components.
i agree... the hammerhead is supposed to be a flak ship...a ship create to destroy fighter...his only predator should be other capital ship or bombers! but now...and since the beginning...multicrew ship or even bigger ship;..can be destroy by a single fighter;... it could never happen..... and i agree, multicrew ship are useless right now... the flight model (even if i like MM) is an hybrid...(i will prefer WW2 style flight model like star wars) not a real flight model.....like if CIG don't know what they want... there are big big problem of vision....after 12 years..;it is a big problem
@Avenger__One - What if you were only using part of the Power management system that was not the correct way to use it? What if we were only using a portion of the system and you are just sued to using a small portion of it? Would you be able to handle using the old system as it was with all the new systems online? Maybe you are just used to those three sytstems? All power to shields guns and weapons and forgetting about everything else? You are just used to a system that was not fully developed?
I may be a newish player (only a couple of years in), but I genuinely enjoy flying in the Master Modes flight model. Although I do have to say I miss getting my *ss handed to me by some ace pilot, obviously those experiences were far from fun (frustrating to the point of screaming at my monitor), they did give me a goal: git gud (get better)! So I put in hours and hours, still am far from a competitive PvP capable pilot, but I did get better. Nowadays it feels like I can see the (skill) ceiling, probably will never get there, but on a good day, I might be able to reach out and "almost" touch it, which means it's way too low. I'd love to see a model where people like A1 thrive and whoop *ss and where multi crew ships have a place too, the rock - paper - scissors (and I hope a couple more) system CIG has mentioned would be cool to see. But also having something like a power plant with less "Lego blocks" in its pool (not enough to set&forget), but overclocks when a power stack (like weapons) is fully or at least 3/4 loaded or something, so you could set&forget with some power plants, but then you're not pushing your ship to its limits > with this system the casual players can still be efficient, but by adding this layer; skill, preparation and agency gets rewarded/a bonus
There is an easy solution. Leave small ships with simplified, triangle system. With slightly updated UI and performance, and let medium and larger ships to use this new, more static system.
After trying the new power system, I feel that YES for large Multicrew its a great solution.. However for quick acting fighters this simply is a step in the wrong direction... I agree that the Triangle was not the perfect solution but fighter pilots need a way to quickly re-direct power to where it needs to go. I also feel that the Hud has been obsfucated so much so that it is difficult to get al the necessary fight data quickly into view... Lets hope that our feedback to CIG does not fall on deaf ears!
I've never understood power management in a fighter. why would it be designed that way? if you look at the evolution of fighters they have always pushed to make as much of the planes systems automated. ww2 started you had to change prop pitch, a/f ratio, timing, and throttle almost constantly. keep an eye on alt so you could switch super charger drive speeds. by then end of the war the fw190 had combined all that in to the throttle you just set the power you wanted. i get power and system management in larger or multi role ships, but a light fighter is ment for one thing. why dosn't it just work.
Multiplayer this brick thing is oke, for single seat or ships without an dedicated engineering station we need something like the triangle power distribution system that could be switched with your thumb on your hotas. If you need to do it as a single player you will always be slower then someone who has a second crew mate dedicated to move the bricks while monitoring the ship and surroundings. You could even say that on a multi crew ship which is bigger and has more power, shields en armor time and hast is less of a factor in combat because you can absorbed more damage. Now maybe CIG can somehow incorporate both systems for single pilot ships. I would love if CIG give us the freedom to choose an customize how we use and setup such a system and key bindings, shortcuts etc.
Another great insight on the flight model changes. Your videos follow a logical strain of thought that is easy to follow and understand (even though you can be overly negative, and you should try to talk a little about the positives as well). I'm worried that we're losing the important depth in the flight model. The goal should always creating a model that is easy to learn, but hard to master. That is visually pleasing, and that scales from small ships to large ships. It's obviously easier said than done, but I'm afraid CIG have gone too far towards a more casual flight model...
AC combat focused player still complaining about the games development. AC might have meant something years ago when the game was in it's infancy and staged arena was basically it. But SC is much bigger than just PVP - lot of players have absolutely no interest at all in PVP or even NPC ship combat. They just want a large sandbox to explore and career loops.
Power management from Star Trek bridge crew. Should be ok for multi crew ships when coupled with the power nodes discussed previously. I don’t know if power management needs to be that important to a single seat fighter. But power to guns / shields / thrusters is a standards game mechanic. If they gave a power plant a limited amount of ‘boost’ time - that could be fun to gain extra to assign for limited time when needed. I know you don’t like boost in flight combat, but extra boost to thrusters assigned by power - get in position, or limited extra boost to guns to recharge. Ultimately game is far enough along to have all this properly worked out and written up and provided to the community by now. We should have a flight white paper. But I suspect the reasons they haven’t committed are twofold: 1. Don’t know what their system will support for no of players, latency etc. 2. If they don’t tell you what game will be, you don’t know if you will / won’t like the game.
your 2. point is very true. the moment they set in stone what this game will be, alot of players leave the ship and never look back. some might even fight for refunds.
Well, for example, my car or say an F16 don’t really have a live power management system. This actually is an old game mechanic (I’m 54, so I’ve seen it before) and maybe it is time to try something new. Is CIG on the right path? I don’t know, but I’d like to see what they are coming up with. But I’m a bit anxious too, as their track record is a bit shaky. All I can say is we don’t have the full picture, and this Alpha setup they are running seems to be about generating their development funds and to a lesser degree a user feedback treasure trove for them. Which I can understand, so many people have so different opinions and this really isn’t a democracy. We’ll find out eventually. Cheers o7
This looks more like it should be on a (far wider) engineers display; old triangle system wasnt perfect, but ironically the concept gave more granular control, even in the middle of combat.
I feel like CIG needs to define what a fighter CAN do in a 1v1 that doesnt involve completely beating it. Perhaps disabling singular components for friendly larger combat ships to really deal the damage, while not taking away small fighter skill expression and freedom in general which are stat capped especially by its speed.
This power management where you can put all blibs in all power drains, works just for fighters iirc. I sat in an 890j and you could not put all the power in all systems. I dont know where they want to go for this, but i think thats important to know.
i dont see problem here.. all they have is to convert dammage for shield resistance... so it will be impossible flr 1 or even 3 foghters to scratch a hull of larger ships.. also add point deffence automated system aggainst those figjters, system thst will be op as it should be... if there is an actuall battle cruiser matched aggainst an arrow for example, it should be just a laught.. you will need a solid squadron of arrows to for example lower the shields of carrack.. Like in ST, a shuttle cannot depleet shields of for example Class Akira Escort... a shuttle will burn power cells way before the akira shields will drop down.. end in oppose akira can wipe out a number of shuttles... just make the hp difference, penetration math, shield resistance factors actually usefull.. but the fps and actuall battle mode should be introduced at the very end... so chill out. ;)
CIG needs to go to the Elon Musk school of design, iteration and fast update! It makes sense to make broad changes but when they make changes they let it stew and dont stay on task to update. Instead they make wide sweeping changes and then all we get are excuses that they will make better changes in the next version. They really need to pick a problem and then actually work on it and upgrade it until its at least close to good enough! You are spot on A1 and I wrote the above before I heard anything you said. This crap of making broad, sweeping changes and then do nothing followup is more than I can take! As for spectrum I tried leaving my feedback and got NOTHING in return so I figure why bother if no one is going to listen and pay attention to what I have to say!
I'm seriously thinking of going to elite dangerous and come back to star citizen in 10 years. I hope it's still around by then, and maybe it'll be close to completion.
I like the new power system. Look there is nothing for you to do power wise in a fighter anyway. you are either on nav mode or not so you shouldn't need to adjust anything in combat. I do see this being nice for out of combat usage like keeping your temperature and IR signature low and avoiding wear and tear and stealth. If you are a pirate who is ambushing an opponent it adds a degree of tactics and strategy to the game
Wasn't it mentioned that we can have power allocation presets. Perhaps you can allocate pre combat a few different setups and you can shortcut them during flight/fight. Would even increase the player agency with power gameplay. Well let's see, what will happen...
I’m glad Multicrew ships will need multiple crew to be effective in combat, that’s how it should be. BUT when crewed by a proficient crew they should be super OP
At this point I think Yogi is doing this on purpose to deflect from the negative feedback about MM. First the nonsensical Corsair, now this, and the ony weapon trigger only. For the first time since march, Spectrum's feedback isn't mainly focused on negative feedback about MM.
@@shmayazuggot8558 yeah indeed there is and yeah, I saw camurals video on that. You know they have a situation any dev could dream of, while in software development you usually have to pay people of your target demographic to test and review your software or even for user research. Not only has CIG that for free, ongoing and very actively, those users even pay a lot of money. But what does CIG do? They don't listen and instead try to make the feedback disappear.
My main issue with the power management is the fact it has a scroll bar, when it should be shrunk and displayed in 2 rows on one screen.
That's it!!!
Why can’t they have both the new power manage system and the old quick power triangle? The quick power triangle ONLY effects power that is in the weapons, shields, and guns. The new slower screen allows you to access power management to include other systems as well. One would be a quick in solo combat system and the other would either be out of combat or would incentivize multi-crew power management
The new one is quick too, lol
@@Jjorn It is quick but you always have your power at max for weapons, shields and engines where before the default power distribution was right in the middle of all things. So you could give MORE power to weapons, shields or engines for added benefits making you able to get the upper hand in dogfights.
@@Jjorn ye it is quick but there is no choise you just put everything at 100% and call it a day and in live one you have 100 points to distribute beetween 3 systems so there was decision making involved with fighting do i was my engines work better ? or mayby i need a "boost" to my shield ? that was another layor of fight. I was sure flying gonna get more complex as the game develop but its look like its getting more simplistic
@@Avean I think the thought behind the new power management system isn't to make the gameplay more engaging while the ship is in mint condition, but to help mitigate damage that you will endure when you're a 10 minute flight from the nearest repair center and you just pulled your ship out of a battle you really shouldn't have been in and you're leaking coolant, your engines are spitting fire and lost half you wing.
@@Avean I assume that will change when engineering is actually in
My problem with CIG is, they already took our money and failed to realize this dream vision over so many years. Now they try to appeal to different crowd to get the money from.
That's how I and I think a lot of OG backers feel atm
indeed, this is no longer becoming the game i was supporting, its something else now...
100% i backed the game in 2012 and backed it because of what was promised and at this point they have taken those promises and turned the game into an Arcade mode flight model they are trying to make the game like Starfield... the current flight model is hot garbage.
very true
and what’s the alternative? Appeal to fewer people, run out of money and we have no game at all?
We need a clear statement what this game is meant to be, is it gonna be an arcade, something in between or a space sim.
So that people can decide and make up their minds if they want to be apart or continue supporting the project.
Because if this is meant to be a casual arcade, then I think many of us will look for something else with more depth and a higher skill ceiling.
At some point the "accessibility" has to stop. Where is the line? When we reach mobile gaming levels of simplicity?
this game was never going to be a space sim. if it was a space sim you would not having planes in space.
... will look for something else ...
That is imo the exact reason they wont make this clear.
We already know it was supposed to be a space sim. They are appealing to a new generation at the expense of older backers because we are used up.
Arcade does not in any way mean easy, and the game has never attempted to be realistic. None of CRs games were. It is Star Wars-esque WW2 planes in space. Always has been.
A realistic space combat game would be an RTS, not a flight sim.
Pretty sure people can make up their own mind about whether they want to keep playing a game and don’t need the developer to input on that decision. Right now it just seems like people want to constantly whine and bitch like a Karen on heat as loud and long as they can. If You don’t like it…..DONT Play it
The tiredness of your voice is worrying me in this vid lol. But im right there with you with these worries
He does play like 8 hours a day.
I’m back in elite having way more fun.
@@AtlasRandGaming feels like star citizen’s flight model is going that direction as well lol
no more power triangle? I kinda liked the power triangle
To be fair, I think the community has been asking the point of multicrewed ships for a long time. Good to see that CIG still haven't figured that out themselves even as they push more multicrewed ships into the game.
I think my irritation at these whole scale combat changes happening this year is that they are trying to force on the sq42 combat here. Which is really odd considering how long the combat system we had prior was on the ptu. And without going through regression testing of it on ptu before cementing it into sq42, have decided to cement it into sq42 and tell everyone on ptu to deal with it. Which is counter to their story of ptu testing systems for sq42.
I think part of the solution is to add to the complexity of waste heat management.
For instance if we tien off the coolers our ships become more stealthy, but heat will start to build up quicker as it isn't being removed. Smaller ships have lower mass to surface area and would therefore have lower loitering time at default settings, but would be able to get back into the fight much faster then a large ship which would in turn have a higher looter time. We should have the option to eject superheated matter, in the form of a disposable heat sink, creating a massive Ir spike in the area, but possibly obscuring the ship itself. Each individual component may also have a preferred operating temperature, and work better within that specific range, rewarding engineering teams which can effectively manage these things. These ranges should vary based on components.
And that's just heat management.
Having not gotten my hands on any of these changes yet, all I can assume is that the power management in anything large enough will need to be controlled by a co-pilot or engineer during combat, likely being the difference that hopefully negates the advantage fighter ships have in speed and maneuverability. The rest should come from the eventual implementation of the maelstrom system. I love flying my Connie in battle, but I've always understood that if going into pvp, or even certain pve situations, I'm going to need at least a small wing of fighters swatting the flies from my behind. That said, fighter pilots should still have a rudimentary system such as the power triangle. I'm pretty sure the balancing won't end up as bad as many fear, as people panic far too often to any change.
Hopefully this ends up being the case, but as of right now you set everything at 100% and forget it. There is no choice lol
i can wait for a copilot to redirect the shields "live" so to become basically invincible to a single fighter running circles. literally talking shield regen>dps. it would finally put multicrew on the map, if just two people can move shield and ship around to negate the mobility advantage of the fighters
We move from realistic to arcade which is basically breaking an initial promise. What happened to Chris?
Greed... and he plays with an Xbox controller.
Because a more complicated systems and subsystems management system is less realistic and more arcade, right?
Any excuse for your deluded peanut brain to whine...
Probably too busy counting the money, every single time anyone asks him anything he screams "quiet that noise, I lost count and now I have to start again!"
All these changes convince me Chris purposely breaks things to add to delay and tedium, in turn he gets to keep printing money with new shiny jpegs. He has a conflict of interest to deal with. We all see it...there is no incentive to finish the game...that is a clear FACT...he makes more money that way.
Nothing in this post ist correct. It's not arcade. It's never been promised in any way. And you are just too lame to adopt to a change. A good one BTW.
Wow, i don't know the direction cig is going with this... But, being able to change my power curves quickly during combat is essential.
You still can, just not in this patch. That is coming in 4.0; 3.24.2 was given partial implementation of 4.0 features so they could pre-solve server deadlocks, crashes, and errors as part of the 4.0 code branch before some of the big ticket 4.0 items are brought into the game. The MFDs were back-ported but not all of the feature sets associated with the MFDs (i.e., resource management) came with it.
yeah and it won't go away, it's just that engineering presets (and the ability to cycle between them) is tied to 4.0. So it's awkward in 3.24.2 but that's only temporary.
I don't get it. You can move the pips around with keybinds, stick assignments or even voice attack. It doesn't seem much different to the triangle and actually takes more skill imo since you have to make your power allocations within the energy budget. The argument about pay to win seems a bit spurious as well. A more expensive component should be better at its job than the cheaper variety. I don't mind grinding to get better components. It gives the player a mini goal to shoot for.
i agree with the pay to win part. We have been waiting for good components to mean something forever, what i dont like is that it seems like a good component makes it so you lose the ability to power manage, because everything is gonna be at 100% all teh time and thats it
@@aguspuig6615 I think there should be some kind of drawback for having more total power brick, like overheating of the power plant how more frequent failures
@@aguspuig6615 Yeah, I was working under the assumption that no power plant would give you enough pips to be able to set everything to max. I thought there would always be a few pips short of a full house even with the best units. If you can max everything then I agree with you. It all becomes a bit pointless in that case.
I think the lego block management is better, I dont want to mess with power when in a fighter, but thats just my low skill opinion, what happened to the "power presets" they said would come with this change? wouldnt that accomplish the same thing as the triangle? when in a multicrew, i still dont want to mess with power, id rather delegate that to my engineer guy or co pilot or whatever, i will say though i dont like how you have to scroll side to side to see all the blocks
Yes the new power system needs a preset that we can bind on a hotkey, so we can switch between different power states on the fly!
horizontal slider is terrible and I cannot fathom that anyone could've actually thought "yes people will love the horizontal slider and will definetely not be extremely angry when they have to give up control of their ship completely in the middle of combat just to mess with a few sliders"
To be honest I kinda like the new power system. But I guess I will wait to try it out myself to test it.
How can you like something you haven’t tried?
Once cap ships are in Star Fighters will be relegated to background noise as it should be.
At this rate you should switch to Overwatch 2 tho u probably won’t get past 1000sr with those boomer reflexes 😂
Hay A1. I agree with to on this from a pilots perspective.The power triangle gave players the options of managing where/what needed priority during flight. It was a good system for flight. It should still be there.
The NEW surety is for engineering. It will allow you to stop power to specific components for maintenance or spec out for specific purposes.
You sure as hell don't want to be messing with this new system during a fight! That will get you killed.
I think both should be used. One for desired setup and maintenance, and the other for flight.
Its actually good if you know how to set up binding. You can now move power from weapons too shields without taking power from engines. with two buttons on my HOTAS
exactly, and it will only get better once engineering presets come with 4.0 since you'll be able to very carefully map not jsut 3 component types but all to any kind of preset and toggle/cycle between them (in other words, a more advanced, deeper kind of power triangle with more player agency.... that is to say the exact opposite to what A1 seems convinced is happening).
I mapped the old power triangle to one of my four-way hats on my HOTAS stick. Left click was one pip to weapons, right click was one pip to shields and one click down was one pip to engines. Middle press was reset pips to default. Now, where most may not know, in the power management menu under key binds, you can long press to set max levels. So, if I long press left, I go max pips to weapons, long press right to max shields and long press down to go max to engines. You would be pleasantly surprised just how intuitive it is to move energy reserves around these ship systems. Now, from what I understand in the new build with the new MFDs, you can actually still do this. You have key binds for single pip allocation to weapons, shields and engines. You can also, still long press to max out that system. I don't know doing so now removes pips from other ship systems, and if so from which systems does it allocate those pips from. For me, as long as I can still use my four-way hat to allocate pips by touch then I'll be happy.
@@Bronwyn031 I have the exact same 4-hats mapping on 3.24.1 I think MFD keybinds are still being added, but in .2 I initially did not find equivalent bindings (but will give it another try). Pretty sure we'll retrieve that ability with engineering presets in any case.
Did they steal Starfields power management system??? 🤮🤮🤮
This power management system was also in wing commander and freelancer way before.
I personally like this power system because, since the most recent ptu update, you no longer have enough power to max out all bars, this actually gives co-pilots a reason to exist, since now they can reroute power to whichever is needed most in battle.
1.) You are not alone
2.) The Bucc was, is and always will be your favourite ship :)
I really like the Bucc, too! 🤓
Speaking facts
We don't even have the full system yet. They split this system in half and we won't get the other half of it until 4.0. As such I have a hard time judging its effectiveness or uselessness. The key things that will make or break this new system in my mind are:
- The ability to repair and swap components
- Engineer level power management and presets
- The balance of shields, armor, and component damage instead of HP
Until this is all introduced (like was originally supposed to happen) it will be hard to actually see if these changes have any meaning. They still need to provide a way for us to determine and compare component stats IN GAME! All I can really do for now is tell them if the interface is clunky but honestly they need to hurry and give us the entire engineering and new ship damage system so we can give them the actual useful feedback.
NOTE: One thing I think would be really useful to have implemented is the coordination between the pilot and co-pilot. Can I tell my co-pilot to take over evasive maneuvers while I deal with something on the MFD's? Can we swap who's flying and who's shooting without changing seats? That's what I envision when someone says co-pilot and to me it's the difference between a co-pilot and a weapons officer (as I believe they are called).
I should have reinforced that in my comment: we're just having half of the system and that's maybe why it is not working as planned, explained and showed from the last 2 ISC.
Having heard same words on every patch for years.
im realy getting very tired of hearing "its not complete yet" ... i understand that this is active development, but cant they just finish one system and then move to the next? everything is half broken all the time and then replaced with the next half broken thing... cant see any competence here and losing trust really describes what i'm feeling these days.
I get what you're all saying. The stuff keeps coming out in pieces, but the later pieces never seem to make it out of concept. I hope this (4.0) doesn't end up being another 3.23 situation
This has to be one of the hardest issues for me to have an opinion. On one hand, I absolutely agree with you and want MORE player agency, not less. Having the pilot's decisions affect the combat is paramount to having a working game.
On the other hand, I absolutely hate power management in combat. If this was anything else, I'd be 100% on board. But for some reason trying to manage power in the midst of combat is one of the most jarring things to me and I try to avoid it at all costs.
I agree that the power managment in the middle of a fight quite often is a source for frustration (for me anyways). But at the same time it adds that little extra agency and edge that I want to be in control of - with a simple intuative GUI. I do not always fully agree with @Avenger_One - but on this video I agree with him 100%.
Power management in combat could give you that slight advantage you needed to tip a fight in your favour (PvP or PvE). It was easy to press a function key or joystick binding to add a bit more power to weapons if you needed the extra damage or recharge, you could add more boost recharge if you needed to disengage or pick up speed, or increase your shield recharge if they were getting low. Now, doing those things is counter productive, as there's not an intuitive way of receiving feedback, not an intuitive way of controlling it, and trying to find information on any of your power settings means you have to look at a tiny screen that even has a horizontal scrollbar on it - an UX crime.
The power management was actually there before (you could control individual systems and components) but the power management you needed (the power triangle for combat) was separated and intuitive to use.
If you are willing to use a Dual Joystick (VKB or better) it’s very easy to move Power around and it makes a big difference, at least right now.
if its done well it dont feel jarring
Yep. The pink haired girl is absolutely the one who must feel comfort in combat sim game... Your opinion is for sure more important then opinions of hundreds of players who trained for months. DCS < Arcade
They banned me from Spectrum because we are not allowed to critique development of this game. Feedback is dead.
I think you should maybe look at this video again. They have implemented a ton of keys for the MFD to allow you to set so that you can adjust power management even while in combat in the PTU.
I dont know when sitting in a dedicated fighter it makes sense to have full power to all fighting relevant systems, but lets say you sit in something like a terrapin which is a data link and information ship(basically awacs) its more sensible to put points in your sensors and ew systems also running in something like a sabre you might not want to be a funky ball of energy output then there is the thing with battle damage if your generator is damaged or not in mint condition because youre already in space for quite a while this might effect your power output, i am more curious to where this is going then to where it is on its maiden day
Yes and no the power Triangle is gone or as you say set and forget it. If you look down in the Menus you will find keyboard keybinds for the different power and they do work even when the power mfd not up. So you can still change the power levels on the fly just going to need to have Device that has a lot of available buttons
Yeah but it's not needed at all, you can have full power in all meaningful systems at all times.
Fighters just received an insanely powerful buff
Totally missed the point 🤦🏻♂️
I would get behind the removal of the power triangle if it came in exchange for something. Like imagine if they just created alot of weapon types, and balanced them, in such a way that being able to ''overclock'' your guns would break the game, and they needed to simplify that side of the game to add complexity when it comes to picking weapons.
The problem for me is that that isnt the case, i had finally gotten used to tweaking my power settings on the fly and bam, they just take it away...
yeah it sucks, I use the PT all the time. but what A1 didn't remember is that engineering presets are also supposed to come in 4.0, when the resource network gameplay will actually release.
that will mean mapping your own favourite power settings outside of combat, for each ship you care about and have the ability to toggle them on/off or cycle during combat. And share them with friends/org mates. it'll be on a ship by ship basis, so you can have your favourite settings for racing, combat, etc.
I am looking forward to engineering. The problem is lots of fighter pilots not even the PvP ones voiced concerns with getting bogged down managing engineering and combat. Because they use systemic software architecture everything has to work consistently with little granularity or maintain 2 completely isolated system end to end and only change both at the same time doubling work and potential bugs from unintended side effects. What they basically did was made fighter sized power plants be able to power most or all your power bricks, so you never have to deal with it. This system now has little impact on ships with single power plants. If you have 2 power plants and lose 1 and all its allocations is when you need to start really shuffling power in a hurry which is more a bigger ship issue.
The triangle was just a ratio slider. Maybe they could just do a ratio centered around whatever levels you have in allocations. Averaging 3 integers is trivial CPU work. Or give more units than you can allocate, and that extra pool can be slid around but is raises heat 'stressing' the relays with that bonus juice if you ride it too much out of neutral. So you get a base allocation and a sliding pool on top with any extra power and more over the base setting more heat/wear.
I have the ultimate fix for fighter's vs multicrew ships; make it a death sentence to engage the larger ones. Fighters can move about 150ms faster across the board but are capped at S3 guns and S5 missiles sans the Ares and fighter bombers that get bespoke anti ship weapons. Bombers need tank and less agility than fighters but barely more agility than multicrew ships like the Broadsword bomber in WC. Multicrew are S4-6 only with faster turrets so all fighters can do is chuck missiles or find a blindspot and lack the speed/agility to chase fighters without its own fighters. Caps S7+ and just make range the fence for s m l ships.
This new power distribution screen is completely focused on dedicated engineering gameplay, and will work very well for an engineer to manage on a full screen display.
However, you are not overreacting at all. This system has no business being applied to a fighter cockpit, and has no useful function during combat. We've lost all ability to quickly shunt power to a necessary system in an emergency situation.
If they want to fix this? Leave the new system to multi-crew ships, and bring back the triangle for fighters.
They are working on keybinds for the MFDs, so in the future we will hopefully be able to change our power settings on the fly again.
@Avenger__One: you guys are aware of the "engineering presets" right? That system that will allow players to make meaningful choices in combat to affect outcomes (and in ALL other scenarios that this game is also about). Right? Because that's the elephant in the room for the entire video here.
How it works is that you will set your favorite power settings in advance, for specific ship roles and for any number of scenarios you care about, then you'll be able to save them from patch to patch, share them with friends (or people taking your combat courses), and of course, map them to your HOSAS.
That's "set and forget", in the sense that you don't need to fiddle with precise settings during combat (which would make no sense), but it's also an active system, because you'll cycle or toggle different presets dynamically, exactly like you'd do with the power triangle.
Only that you'll have more depth vs now, not less, because you'll be able to tweak how you use coolers, radar, batteries etc. and not just thrusters shields and weapons.
So, you'll retrieve the SAME philosophy as the power triangle, but with MORE player agency, and much deeper customization.
TL:DR: Chill out, I get the concern but this time it is genuinely a false alarm. Just check the recent ISC on engineering, you'll be reassured.
The problem IMO with light fighters kiting hammerheads to death as I saw it was that a size 1 gun can eventually bring down what is supposed to be an armoured behemoth. Armor and armor penetration should matter hugely. Missiles are ridiculously underpowered vs IRL. Think of 1 Spitfire vs a dreadnought in WW2, a big missile should be its only chance to do any serious damage, it would be very limited as to how many it could carry and the dreadnought would have defences.
Instead they've taken a flight system that was emperically very enjoyable and hamstrung it, and are continuing to make it worse assumedly to appease people who probably couldn't care either way.
Old Triangle power was ideal for duel sticks in fighters and large ships, solo just assigned it to a hat switch and had full control.
I spent a few hours sitting in the hangar on Orison just swapping in and out size 1, 2 and some size 3 components across a couple dozen ships, seeing what happens, turning things off and on, etc. This version, which is also pre-resource network exposure, is a tier 0 thing. Looking at the signatures feedback request, it looks like they are trying to set it up so that there is a risk associated with choosing certain component types, in that you can end up with really big signatures in relatively small ships - suggesting they want to lean more into missile load outs and game play. imho I think they are trying to set it up so that missile pressure forces smaller ships into ranges where multi-crew turrets are effective. Okay, sure, but I don't think it's going to play out that way. The new HUD has more ew than ahhh operationally, aesthetically they are nice until you see that real bright light.... It also feels like they want you to be able to fly a ship with a controller, the interaction wheel, etc., all feels like console game interface and interaction. I'm not big into PvP and AC and I don't dogfight a lot. I don't really think these changes are "for you" and they are, in fact, iteratively introducing more multi-crew systems. We'll have to see what the new component and signature management effects do with missiles, I think that is something that would make for a great stream for content. But there is a really long way to go to get to something that is immersive, deep, entertaining and has an approachable skill floor and a meaningful skill ceiling. The movement of agency to simplify inputs is going to create an arcade game. I know they are going to be making the higher end components loot rewards to encourage diversifying game play and starting to hopefully drive a player market, and there are more interconnections between game systems and game loops being introduced. The incredible complexity in SC as software and engineering is really substantial, and they are sticking to Gall's Law in some areas, and less so in others, and that is really starting to show. I don't always agree with you, but I appreciate your lens as we play the game different ways for different reasons and enjoy what we get from it, including when we happen to run into each other and "exchange play styles" :D
TBH i don't think any player feedback is been taken in to consideration by CIG lately, apart of some rare cases when the feedback aligns with CIGs intentions anyway.
God I hope they let us navigate between the screens with the digi pad on a controller. The new MFDs will get another rework, dont worry.
needing multiple people to squeeze any potential of of larger ships is the point of a lot of these changes c.i.g wants the focus to change to larger ships instead of smaller ships. also slowing down combat was the "balance to this" they want smaller ships to move slow enough so that the larger ships can kill them more easily .
The problem with that is we signed up for "Star Citizen", not submarine simulator, which is what it's devolving into.
The problem here is this doesn't even fix that issue the issue with large ships not being able to kill smaller ship has always been do to weapon balancing there no difference in range form size 1 - 10 weapons so most fights start are 1200m so the smaller ship is harder to hit and with the large ships having no speed to either close distances or chase small ships nothings going to change
@@dougelick8397 They have been talking about these systems since 2014. By now people shoudl know what they signed up for, and this was always on the cards -- Chris Roberts prattled on about engineering and multi-crewing in this design scope for ages.
@@RedFifteenSIIS015 Yes it will, because small ships (post 4.0) will not be able to damage larger ships unless they can punch through the armour and specifically damage components. At 2,400 metres out, how is a small ship front-facing a Carrack going to do any damage whatsoever? The size 1 - 3 weapons will just tickle it. Meanwhile, due to the small size of the interceptor/snub/light fighter, the Carrack will be able to do massive damage since smaller craft will have all of their components tightly knit together -- doubly so for weapons that do splash damage. It will be very difficult for small craft to take down larger craft with the new component focus on 4.0, and the extircation of getting a pop based on HP pools.
If you say so lol.
I'm hoping we can eventually use the presets to replace the in combat power management system the triangle use to give us. Or we at least can have a hat switch set to do what elite dangerous did where shifting power to weapons would remove segments from one of the other two but you also had a reset button which most would press before shifting power to one of the three main areas. One good thing about presets could be that you could even have one for say retreating where you only divert power to rear shields (on certain ships) and the rest to engines etc etc ;)
Something that annoys me with the removal of the power mini game we've had, is that those 4 buttons we had are now most likely gonna get replaced by 4 new functions that no one has asked for...
they really start pissing me off
*I like it better this way.*
I always thought doing on-demand power tuning as a pilot was stupid and it's much more fun to come up with power allocation "builds" beforehand and then use skill to playing to the strength of what you created rather than being able to just do with it whatever you want whenever you want. It's lame and too easy that way.
I'd be OK with this if we still had meaningful choices in other areas, but alas, we do not.
@@Avenger__One
It's not like you can't change power distribution.
It's just a controls issue, not a feature issue.
I believe they're more focused on multi crew ships. That and CIG's tendency to copy/past EVERYTHING. Making single pilot ships suffer. With multi crew ships, The engineer can adjust power management on the fly as needed. But single seat fighters should have power management system that functions like the old method just with the newer UI. It's hard to say if it's just an oversight of CIG, procrastination preventing them from doing it right the first time, or narrow minded game dev's unable to forsee how the changes they make affect other ships/play styles.
It’s become super obvious to me that the changes CIG has and are still making to the flight model is to make dog fighting more accessible to a wider range of players, especially with the new power management system. What you’re referring to here as a set it and forget it direction exemplifies this completely. I think the current PMS worked very well for me and use it consistently when dog fighting, finding it an integral part of succeeding, using the choices I have to move power around accordingly on the fly. If what I am to understand here is that I now will have to look down at a screen and search functions to manage power, this does not seem helpful. Dumbing the game down might get more players involved in the short term but like you said, people will get bored fast because of the low skill ceiling. Even though I am certainly not a great dog fighter, I still love it and have fun engaging because I know there is so much yet to learn and get better doing. I totally underestimated the level of skill needed to be good at a game like this and have come to respect all those who are considered elite tremendously. It’s those great dog fighters that provide the incentive to compete and get better. I don’t need or want it to be easy, even in my older age. I haven’t played with the new changes yet but am looking forward so to give some kernel of feedback.
I only had the chance to test PTU in my Reclaimer, as it is basically my home ship and want to test it extensively. In big ships like that, the new power management makes sense, as you are supposed to have at least another crew member. This feels much more like classic Sci-Fi were the captain asks the crew to set energy one way or another, I love it. But I can't stop thinking about when I'm gonna take my F7A out and will not be able to change power on the fly, and I see it's exactly what you complain about. Solo ship should have a much simpler system, power triangle was perfect for that.
Not even mentioning the fact that energy to weapons now affects turret capacitors, which seems logical but will clearly nerf some ships like reclaimer or HH, which don't rely on pilot weapons.
Haven´t tried the new MFDs in general and the new power settings in particular myself yet. But i do not want to have a bunch of new keybindings for every setting. All i need is an EASY way to navigate through the MFD pages and inside a given MFD page, eg. power management, which should allow me to use just a 4-way hat switch on a joystick to alter the settings.
If i cannot manipulate settings easy in stressful situations, i will probably end up pants down - no matter if it is combat or mining or whatever.
I don’t understand how the new systems different. Is it because more powerful components let you max everything rather than choosing where to apply power?
I haven’t had an opportunity to try the new system yet.
Haven't tried it yet, but to my understanding you nailed it
I agree with you but I want to hear specifics along the lines of things that are planned, not about trust. The important thing is how the problem you see can be solved. Maybe armor, larger shield components being stronger, and higher turret turn rates will give big ships more of an advantage, but that's purely speculation as a non-combatant. Also in the current gameplay, ships are just HP pools that die when they reach zero. After resource networks and armor are implemented, being able to land hits on components is how you would take down large ships.
it's normal to break old stuff when releasing new stuff so often ... the problem is we're in the complete darkness as to why they choose to break the cool stuff and why they deliver the not so cool stuff
For compatibility, progression and accessibility.
The old system didn't work with engineering (among other things), nor group play (dividing up screens for different things). Now that can devote those screens piece meal if they want and provide user security around them if need be for all sorts of things (Group roles, authorization, etc). They also said they were not done with the helmet casting options and there would be more.
Furthermore, on the progression front, if they allow you to have the most optimal performance now, or its easy to get where would the progression or grind be? Additionally, if they want wide adoption, controller support, and potentially deliver to consoles, they have to change how much of that worked. Does that make sense?
They told us why: resource management.
The 3.24.2 implementation feature is only a partial implementation of what is coming with 4.0 and the full resource management system, where you will be able to modify and save and load presets, which they talked about during ISC.
You ever take your car in for a oil change, and they break the transmission, or the air conditioner? You ever go home smiling about it? Call it normal?
Which comes back to communication doesn't it, they have the platform but so many things they treat it like it's a huge wonderful surprise for us.
Core thing like this now I feel they need to be more open with their intentions sooner, simply saying this is the X and Y goals by the end.
Atm we only have vague hand wavy goals so how the hell are we to judge if this is their final implementation or they have a bunch more to work on.
Share some more detailed plans early before spending months of work on something the community will pick up a pitch fork for as it's against what was promised/implied/imagined or not what is best for the game if receiving feedback earlier in the process
@@greatdanexlks due respect. This isn’t a car nor AC. It’s a game. Entertainment.
To me it looks like Master Modes was always just a prelude to the power system, the combat and nav modes are just swapping the power to the correct spaces in the new and improved power bank system. They're just presets like "combat" and "nav" with the pips put in the places to activate said systems
what about a dogfighting master mode, available only on ships specified exclusively for combat? it gives you everything, full altimeter, power triangle meant for combat, compressed hud information in the center when you shoot yada yada. as I see it, would mostly only be on smaller ships/fighters. bigger ships don't really need it as their workload is supposed to be split into multiple specific roles/players. currently we treat master modes like when you're not in nav mode you're in combat which isn't necessarily the case for like 70% of ships. i don't see a problem with just giving combat its own specific master mode with its own UI tools to help you in that scenario.i don't care about seeing guns and enemy health and shields and altitude and gsafe necessarily when I'm just doing mining or salvage.
Power management was one of the most interesting gameplay elements in your ship, and their implementation of it was close to perfect for on the fly decision making. Dumbfounding decision to mess with it this much.
Agree about player agency part. Adding stats to craftable items is literally the opposite of what they said they wanted. They said they didnt want to create a meta game where the guns with the best stats wins over skills. But theyve done exactly that.
you can still put power to different things. There are presets for power management that you can keybind. Nothing is changing basically except now components have more meaning again.
I am curious about the motivation behind the simplification of these systems that have been put in over the years, I can only conclude a few good reason why. 1) To decrease variables, and reduce the breaking parts within the system. And to streamline the process of tracking data between client and server. 2) To reduce the toolset that hackers have to manipulate the resulting outcome of any situation they decide to take advantage over.
I'm hoping when it comes to power management that we have some hot keys for shifting things down the road for single-seater ships. For larger ships, I like that you might have someone that handles power management and/or engineering.
As for CIG's response to feedback... that's what really has me worried. They have been outright draconian on the forums when it comes to ANY sort of criticism. Bans, or having your post moved to the graveyard has become the norm for almost anything that isn't glowing praise of CIG. Nightrider and Kobold in particular act rather scummy.
Are we missing something? I can't believe CIG is destroying game mechanics like this.. It has to be an interim shutdown of the system before it's brought back better than ever, right??? The Power Triangle was an ingenious implementation to introduce even more skill-based decisions in dogfighting... I remember it properly coming into the game (It was redundant for a long time despite existing) and I loved it from the get-go when it was actually made useful. In past dogfights I could tell when I'm fighting someone and they don't have their shields hardened to defend against me.. I can make mistakes and not have my shields hardened when the enemy seems to be pulling out but instead they bluff and commit and I pay the price for a second... It's added squares on the chess board. I see no reason why we can't have both systems here, because at this point we're just taking a fleshed out combat system and I dunno... Making the game worse? Weird.... I hope CIG don't take the power triangle assignment system and ignore it ever existed.. That would be a significant mistake.
In live, I'm guessing you have bound the triangle so you can switch things up mid flight. However you can still do this in mid flight with the new system. You create these settings first and save them as a set bind. The initial skill is finding the best components for your flying style. In turn you can then fine tune the power management and set them to set binds.. want more guns and shields? Bind it. What more shields and thrust? Set it and bind it.. this is no different from the current live triangle.. pretty sure you wouldn't sit there mid combat playing with the triangle, you just chuck it somewhere in the middle or the extremes.. you can still do that.. ? Just my two cents :) good vid though, informative as always :)
I don't think people realize that 4.0 is not release this patch is not released none of this is final there have been major changes that were reverted for years it was too forward one back so freaking out about this is like people who freaked out about the cost of quintanium last week
Great video again, and i agree they should have kept the power triangle as another screen on the HUD, along side the new stuff. I would think that this would help multi-crew ships as a quick way to adjust power when in combat. Also I thought we'll be able to save the state of the power bars and recall then via a keybind.
"... or my favourite the Buccaneer" ohhh buddy thoose words must have hurt
Th recent raft of changes since MM have been more and more frustrating. When MM was released, power management was one of the only tools we were left with to differentiate between pilots at the higher skill levels. Now that has been taken away as well.
It feels like CIG is trying to create a model where anyone can hop in and be competitive at the highest levels on day one. I am all for creating a flight model that is easy to approach and learn, but it should not be possible to master flight combat in a few days. Challenge and growth are what make these systems interesting. No one would be playing games like CS or MMOs like WoW if there was no skill progression or mechanical depth.
I really hope CIG revises the flight model before the game becomes Euro Truck Simulator in space.
I have development fatigue. So much has changed and I have no idea what the end goal is anymore. This started as a modernized wing commander online sorta thing, and now it's... I have no clue. So, I dunno how to assess if this is a good or bad change because I dunno wtf this even is anymore, and no one in a position to know is trying to articulate that in a cogent manner. All I know is I've thrown waaaay too much money at something that no longer makes sense to throw money at. So, I won't.
They literally explained all of this in the last two ISC episodes, including addressing the ability to save and load combat presets.
At least they're working on your focus. I'm intending to mostly do search and rescue, so there's not an awful lot of use for me in the game yet. My ships are the Apollo and SRV. An ambulance that's not done yet, and a tow truck that has nothing to tow.
Hi !
Awesome content, as usual.
On this specifi topic, I really think that the main issue here is " should a military ship have the same MFD a civilian / industrial ship has ?"
It feels logic for an airbus to have that amount of controls over the plane, but on a fighter jet you have a very different interface.
One system simply cannot deliver it all. It must be differenciated.
Love your commitment to our game.
O7
I must agree. We will be losing a lot of control throughout the games development. The free comfort/luxury life will be severely reined in.
Any who, we do need dynamic power delivery on the fly.
What percentage of players are fighter pilots in the game? I'm guessing way less then 50% of the player base.
That would explain why CIG wants to make stepping into combat flight easier. But agree, combat flight skills need to be a key factor and there for the game needs complexity in flight and management, but in a way that doesn't kill entry level fighters will to play.
It looks like that the current model is going to be the base model, and we are just testing it. Not to state the obvious.
I wish good components were something like StarSector hull modifications. Were instead of just ''more power'' its specific stuff, like ''you lose shields but double your armor, meaning you get more power to weapons but you are less manouverable'' or stuff like that, the simple ''more expensive bigger number'' cant be all there is imo
I haven't played with the PTU jet but I could see power management would become passive and I have a problem with passive power management. I also keep using active power management during combat.
Cit-Con '24 is going to be make or break personally. If I don't like what I hear, or they aren't clear on the direction of the game and where they are taking it, I will be selling my fleet.
It's been a wild ride, but they've made so many bad decision lately and I cannot see how or why they have made those choices if they are serious about making the best space sim ever.
It's really sad, but I've lost so much faith in CIG and their vision for SC, given their recent choices. I don't lay the blame for this with the developers themselves, rather the senior management team.
I'd really like some honesty from them. I think as backers, we are owed that much. We shared the vision and we put our money were our mouth was, some more than others, but we all put our hand in our pockets to help make the vision a reality. Now it seems like the vision we were sold is off the table and they're slowly pulling a bait and switch. From a deeply technical, rewarding, skill based game, to a bland, generic, slog-fest, with invisible walls and obstacles to 'manage the fun'.
I hope I'm wrong, I really want SC to be the great game we know it could be, but the signs are troubling and it's hard to ignore the lack of engagement with the community from CIG over the concerns we have.
Thanks for your content.
o7
Cig doesn't give a fuck or feel like they owe us anything. They already got the money. Try going on spectrum and giving any opinion other than "wow this is great and we trust you" and see how fast meatrider or some other loser bans you. They are happy to ban unhappy customers and continue doing whatever the fuck it is they're doing now. This ship has sailed and we won't be seeing the game that we already paid for. Oh well, that's just how Chris Roberts the scammer does it, go look at his game dev history. He's a failure
All of these recent, "pre 4.0" changes are only succeeding in making the game more pay-to-win. This used to be an (unfounded) criticism but player agency and mechanical skill prevented that in the past. If all it takes for trolls to log in to the game and meme on PvE players is for them to buy Bucc with real $ or in-game money you can probably just buy off a gold seller site... Well, I wonder what the answer to that problem would be? Pilot skill level grinding? Ultra-Expensive rare components for more money? Surely not re-introducing player skill as the games progression mechanic.
yeah, I briefly tried to get the hotkeys for power management to work last night and quickly realized I didn't have enough time to figure it out.... I'm also not really having fun with the current changes...i'm not excited to play anymore.
Super fresh into my journey took out a multi-crew ship with the Titan on mouse and keyboard. Was really easy 😅
Hold up a sec, you kind of contradicted yourself. You said the lego blocks are based on the quality of components your ship has. That's not pay to play. That's play to play. You can't buy components on the pledge store. The expensive ships on the store are always equipped with the cheap grade C components, which is BS frankly, but they are. So to put good components on your ship, with better output or more damage resistance, you have to earn aUEC to buy them, which means you have to play the game to earn aUEC. That's play to play.
Edit - just saw a different video from the PTU showing how components have been returned to variable stats for all their performance measures - i.e. not all identical the way they are now. This was announced very clearly by CIG, as their intention, the "normalized" components were a stopgap until they came up with what they wanted. I guess they came up with what they wanted. So assignment of power to components will be a lot more complex now, and more of a hangar thing than a heat of battle thing. It's been made a lot more complex, not less complex. That's adding player agency, not removing it.
1:32 - "We've gone from an active system that you adjust in combat on the fly to a passive system that has essentially become a set and forget."
8:41 - "But the problem is, there's no switching these power settings around meaningfully (...) in combat in the current state..."
I thought you were going to provide more information for WHY you specifically feel this way (because I'm not able to test it yet). Why NOT adjust power settings on the fly? What meaningful element is lacking regarding the power settings? i.e. Does the system feel too power saturated as-is? Should there be less "lego blocks" available to use? Do components not feel choked enough when power gets diverted elsewhere?
All Fighter ships can fully power everything, and the new system forces you to use the interaction key, so you cant control your ship.
This. Based purely on the video just now, it looks like he has enough "lego blocks" to power everything all at the same time. Is the future intention to limit the number of blocks so you need to choose where power goes? That seems like the "player agency" we would be looking for, right?
@@auburn8833 Thanks for your first point, being able to max power all of the fighter components does sound boring. Regarding your 2nd point, there is an up keybind and down keybind for each component in the new power system.
@@horanvan I see, that's a lot of keybinds though still, that would be a minimum of 6 binds just for thrusters, capacitors and shields
@@Flyer10254 i depends what components u put inside ur ship. U get/will get different number of blocks with different combination of parts.
I feel like the Power Management system is actually...half of the equation? Like your Power Management sets your Minimums and Maximums - but you still need something like the Power Triangle for those on-the-fly decisions. The Power Triangle enforced decisions like 'Redirect power to shields while I'm on the backfoot' or to engines to regen boost more quickly in a lull.
Power Management seems like something you set beforehand to define your limits, and then you need a mechanism to 'wiggle between' with something like the power Triangle. I think about Star Wars Squadrons where you allocate power to weapons, or to your rear shield, etc. - Like the new Power Management system, it was visually represented on the UI by bars/columns - but it was still intuitively shifting a constrained number of 'blocks' to the situation at hand. But in the new system, your weapons are always at 8 blocks, and if you have a pure advantage over someone and they're running away, you can't just...jack up to 12 weapon blocks at the cost of your shields. At least not until we have something like 'overclocking' (another cool Squadrons mechanic). It might also just be that Power Plants need tuning and you should never be able to have max blocks in 2 things at once.
The power allocation is also a lot less intuitive - as it requires an on-screen interaction. We'll find ways to hotkey these things, and maybe the answer is in the various profiles you can swap between (Press 1 for full weapons, half shields, etc) - but then that's the Triangle with extra steps and a ridiculous number of profiles to manage for different ships with different power plants, etc.
We're missing a lot of the pieces - but in the current implementation (which is the only thing we can comment on in an informed manner) it feels worse in moment-to-moment combat. We lack component weights affecting speeds - where sacrificing the biggest most expensive plant in favor of a lighter one might offer more maneuverability. We lack clarity (beyond Erkul mining) on how the various classes and grades of components will impact outputs. It might get to a point where the ideal interceptor loadout uses a lightweight D civilian shield Generator to power Grade A weapons and thrusters and its 'stack of legos' becomes much more constrained for those more meaningful decisions. In PTU I was flying an avenger with a crap power plant and I straight up could not maximize my weapons and shields at the same time - ironically that made it far more interesting. Maybe the secret sauce is weight, component health, etc. Right now things like Pitch, Yaw, Roll, SCM speed, acceleration, etc. are all defined based on ship-you-bought. If those can be meaningfully affected by components, and the components that give more lego blocks sacrifice those values, suddenly ship-build-crafting becomes a lot more interesting.
CIG often say the community gives feedback because they only have a small part of the overall picture- and I'm not advocating "HAVE FAITH!" - but there are still a LOT of pieces missing from resource management and components.
i agree... the hammerhead is supposed to be a flak ship...a ship create to destroy fighter...his only predator should be other capital ship or bombers! but now...and since the beginning...multicrew ship or even bigger ship;..can be destroy by a single fighter;... it could never happen..... and i agree, multicrew ship are useless right now... the flight model (even if i like MM) is an hybrid...(i will prefer WW2 style flight model like star wars) not a real flight model.....like if CIG don't know what they want... there are big big problem of vision....after 12 years..;it is a big problem
@Avenger__One - What if you were only using part of the Power management system that was not the correct way to use it? What if we were only using a portion of the system and you are just sued to using a small portion of it? Would you be able to handle using the old system as it was with all the new systems online? Maybe you are just used to those three sytstems?
All power to shields guns and weapons and forgetting about everything else? You are just used to a system that was not fully developed?
I may be a newish player (only a couple of years in), but I genuinely enjoy flying in the Master Modes flight model. Although I do have to say I miss getting my *ss handed to me by some ace pilot, obviously those experiences were far from fun (frustrating to the point of screaming at my monitor), they did give me a goal: git gud (get better)! So I put in hours and hours, still am far from a competitive PvP capable pilot, but I did get better. Nowadays it feels like I can see the (skill) ceiling, probably will never get there, but on a good day, I might be able to reach out and "almost" touch it, which means it's way too low. I'd love to see a model where people like A1 thrive and whoop *ss and where multi crew ships have a place too, the rock - paper - scissors (and I hope a couple more) system CIG has mentioned would be cool to see. But also having something like a power plant with less "Lego blocks" in its pool (not enough to set&forget), but overclocks when a power stack (like weapons) is fully or at least 3/4 loaded or something, so you could set&forget with some power plants, but then you're not pushing your ship to its limits > with this system the casual players can still be efficient, but by adding this layer; skill, preparation and agency gets rewarded/a bonus
There is an easy solution. Leave small ships with simplified, triangle system. With slightly updated UI and performance, and let medium and larger ships to use this new, more static system.
After trying the new power system, I feel that YES for large Multicrew its a great solution.. However for quick acting fighters this simply is a step in the wrong direction... I agree that the Triangle was not the perfect solution but fighter pilots need a way to quickly re-direct power to where it needs to go. I also feel that the Hud has been obsfucated so much so that it is difficult to get al the necessary fight data quickly into view... Lets hope that our feedback to CIG does not fall on deaf ears!
The horizontal scrollbar and speed meter are MASSIVELY user-UNfriendly
I've never understood power management in a fighter. why would it be designed that way? if you look at the evolution of fighters they have always pushed to make as much of the planes systems automated. ww2 started you had to change prop pitch, a/f ratio, timing, and throttle almost constantly. keep an eye on alt so you could switch super charger drive speeds. by then end of the war the fw190 had combined all that in to the throttle you just set the power you wanted. i get power and system management in larger or multi role ships, but a light fighter is ment for one thing. why dosn't it just work.
Multiplayer this brick thing is oke, for single seat or ships without an dedicated engineering station we need something like the triangle power distribution system that could be switched with your thumb on your hotas. If you need to do it as a single player you will always be slower then someone who has a second crew mate dedicated to move the bricks while monitoring the ship and surroundings. You could even say that on a multi crew ship which is bigger and has more power, shields en armor time and hast is less of a factor in combat because you can absorbed more damage. Now maybe CIG can somehow incorporate both systems for single pilot ships. I would love if CIG give us the freedom to choose an customize how we use and setup such a system and key bindings, shortcuts etc.
Another great insight on the flight model changes. Your videos follow a logical strain of thought that is easy to follow and understand (even though you can be overly negative, and you should try to talk a little about the positives as well).
I'm worried that we're losing the important depth in the flight model. The goal should always creating a model that is easy to learn, but hard to master. That is visually pleasing, and that scales from small ships to large ships.
It's obviously easier said than done, but I'm afraid CIG have gone too far towards a more casual flight model...
I’m back in Elite now. Having way more fun.
Same here mate
AC combat focused player still complaining about the games development. AC might have meant something years ago when the game was in it's infancy and staged arena was basically it. But SC is much bigger than just PVP - lot of players have absolutely no interest at all in PVP or even NPC ship combat. They just want a large sandbox to explore and career loops.
Power management from Star Trek bridge crew. Should be ok for multi crew ships when coupled with the power nodes discussed previously.
I don’t know if power management needs to be that important to a single seat fighter. But power to guns / shields / thrusters is a standards game mechanic.
If they gave a power plant a limited amount of ‘boost’ time - that could be fun to gain extra to assign for limited time when needed. I know you don’t like boost in flight combat, but extra boost to thrusters assigned by power - get in position, or limited extra boost to guns to recharge.
Ultimately game is far enough along to have all this properly worked out and written up and provided to the community by now. We should have a flight white paper. But I suspect the reasons they haven’t committed are twofold:
1. Don’t know what their system will support for no of players, latency etc.
2. If they don’t tell you what game will be, you don’t know if you will / won’t like the game.
your 2. point is very true. the moment they set in stone what this game will be, alot of players leave the ship and never look back. some might even fight for refunds.
Well, for example, my car or say an F16 don’t really have a live power management system. This actually is an old game mechanic (I’m 54, so I’ve seen it before) and maybe it is time to try something new. Is CIG on the right path? I don’t know, but I’d like to see what they are coming up with. But I’m a bit anxious too, as their track record is a bit shaky. All I can say is we don’t have the full picture, and this Alpha setup they are running seems to be about generating their development funds and to a lesser degree a user feedback treasure trove for them. Which I can understand, so many people have so different opinions and this really isn’t a democracy. We’ll find out eventually. Cheers o7
This looks more like it should be on a (far wider) engineers display; old triangle system wasnt perfect, but ironically the concept gave more granular control, even in the middle of combat.
I feel like CIG needs to define what a fighter CAN do in a 1v1 that doesnt involve completely beating it. Perhaps disabling singular components for friendly larger combat ships to really deal the damage, while not taking away small fighter skill expression and freedom in general which are stat capped especially by its speed.
This power management where you can put all blibs in all power drains, works just for fighters iirc. I sat in an 890j and you could not put all the power in all systems. I dont know where they want to go for this, but i think thats important to know.
i dont see problem here.. all they have is to convert dammage for shield resistance... so it will be impossible flr 1 or even 3 foghters to scratch a hull of larger ships.. also add point deffence automated system aggainst those figjters, system thst will be op as it should be... if there is an actuall battle cruiser matched aggainst an arrow for example, it should be just a laught.. you will need a solid squadron of arrows to for example lower the shields of carrack.. Like in ST, a shuttle cannot depleet shields of for example Class Akira Escort... a shuttle will burn power cells way before the akira shields will drop down.. end in oppose akira can wipe out a number of shuttles... just make the hp difference, penetration math, shield resistance factors actually usefull.. but the fps and actuall battle mode should be introduced at the very end... so chill out. ;)
CIG needs to go to the Elon Musk school of design, iteration and fast update! It makes sense to make broad changes but when they make changes they let it stew and dont stay on task to update. Instead they make wide sweeping changes and then all we get are excuses that they will make better changes in the next version. They really need to pick a problem and then actually work on it and upgrade it until its at least close to good enough! You are spot on A1 and I wrote the above before I heard anything you said. This crap of making broad, sweeping changes and then do nothing followup is more than I can take! As for spectrum I tried leaving my feedback and got NOTHING in return so I figure why bother if no one is going to listen and pay attention to what I have to say!
I'm seriously thinking of going to elite dangerous and come back to star citizen in 10 years. I hope it's still around by then, and maybe it'll be close to completion.
Ridiculous optimism
I like the new power system. Look there is nothing for you to do power wise in a fighter anyway. you are either on nav mode or not so you shouldn't need to adjust anything in combat. I do see this being nice for out of combat usage like keeping your temperature and IR signature low and avoiding wear and tear and stealth. If you are a pirate who is ambushing an opponent it adds a degree of tactics and strategy to the game
What ship loadout should I use right now?
Wasn't it mentioned that we can have power allocation presets. Perhaps you can allocate pre combat a few different setups and you can shortcut them during flight/fight.
Would even increase the player agency with power gameplay.
Well let's see, what will happen...
That's funny how even with a cropped/zoomed in view i still need to squint eyes to feel the speed !
I’m glad Multicrew ships will need multiple crew to be effective in combat, that’s how it should be. BUT when crewed by a proficient crew they should be super OP
Thank you for phrasing it in a way I couldn’t, and what you say is exactly what I was thinking ⬆️
At this point I think Yogi is doing this on purpose to deflect from the negative feedback about MM. First the nonsensical Corsair, now this, and the ony weapon trigger only. For the first time since march, Spectrum's feedback isn't mainly focused on negative feedback about MM.
There is much talk about MM but CIG is actively pushing it to the graveyard threads (fedback)
@@shmayazuggot8558 yeah indeed there is and yeah, I saw camurals video on that. You know they have a situation any dev could dream of, while in software development you usually have to pay people of your target demographic to test and review your software or even for user research. Not only has CIG that for free, ongoing and very actively, those users even pay a lot of money. But what does CIG do? They don't listen and instead try to make the feedback disappear.