Timestamp/Summary - Large Umbrella Category Breakdown : 4:05 - [COMBAT & WEAPONS] Ship weapons/Combat changes/Weapon Range Changes/Armor/Physicalized Damage/Future-Proofing Tech/Balancing. Biggest chunk of the episode, stuff spread out other places. Time to Kill at 36:45 28:35 - [SCANNING] Mostly visual changes in 3.14, Future: EM+IR Signatures to classify actions (EMP, QT, PINGS, Etc.) Ping scheduling/timers. Ambient obstructions (Gas clouds, asteroids, etc.) Different scanner functions per ship at 46:23 34:07 - [GENERAL SHIP BALANCING] Balancing isn't perfectly where they wanted it, it's a hard game to balance. It's iterative, they're working on it. As a foundation the devs are happy with it. De-emphasis on data mining/meta-gameplay, spreadsheet type decisions. They emphasis should be on experience rather than data. They don't want HP to be the most important number or be the reason you make decisions. 48:20 - [FLIGHT & TOLERANCES] G-Forces/Human tolerance for different directions and axis of movement. Not in 3.14 yet, planned for future. 49:06 - [CAPACITORS] Each ship has ship-bound capacitor value (not currently physicalized) items for varying categories (shield capacitor, engine capacitor, weapon capacitor, etc.) Disabling 2 of 3 weapons would leave the remaining one weapon with a larger ammo count (disabling shields would have no effect on the weapon capacitor.) Giving power to shield capacitor slightly boosts shield hardness. Giving power to engines makes the boost more efficient and a little more powerful. NOT THE FINAL ITERATION. More changes will come in the future. 54:44 - [GENERAL / RAPID FIRE QUESTIONS] 54:50 Shield hardening. 55:40 Capacitor Profiles. 55:57 "The Sabre flies bad." Ask better questions. lol. 59:10 Conclusions/Wrap up. This patch is a foundation upon which to build a new balancing scheme.
@@skater15153 Jared said Mark got promoted and doesn't have the time and he also said it was one of the most intensive segments in terms of dev time. He talked about it on the Sol Citizens talk show.
@@skater15153 they are not bringing it back because he had to take a fixed build, rebreak it, then replicate how it was fixed and it took up a lot of dev time. Would love to see a less work intensive version of it showing screenshots of all the fun glitches and code going haywire form the bug fix documentation.
@@jimmy37591 You wouldn't need to rebreak it. That's what source control is for. But ya, the prep would still be annoying and disruptive so it makes sense why they wouldn't have one of their leads do that these days.
@@skater15153 Disco said that they had to fake the bugs when he was on sol citizen's show. I would have imagined it would be possible to use the bad build as source material but apparently it was easier to fake the bug.
I still find it amazing how much this company actually cares and listens to the community. Like Mark at the end "Bad" does not help me fix it; please give details. They really do browse a lot of forums and get input. Some of which they even use !?!
I understand that Star Citizen is a spaceship game and need many spaceships... But, i think there are too FEW land vehicles and a LOT of terrain to explore on planets and moons. It would be good to build "a production line" focused on Land Vehicles and Suborbital Transport.
Star Citizen stopped being a mere spaceship game long ago. "Universe sim" would be a more accuracte description now. I think once we start getting more actual planet side content we'll start seeing more ground vehicles.
@@no2475 I'm really hoping that when they get the planet tech with rivers, that same tech can be used to make paths and roads. Some places like Lorville can have some ground connections, even if they are just simple dirt roads connecting the city to the nearest outposts. There can be paths between outposts too (for bikes and on foot). Going through a forest, along a river, around mountains etc, that would look amazing.
Thank you all CIG, and thank you a LOT Jared for your works. What you do is an absolute necessity for SC and us. Thank you for your respect and to share with us and every new comers, what SC, CIG is. And having dialogues with everybody, being transparent and showing the stuff. Not every studios does that ( could be even none..), and even worst. Other studios are treating their fan base like dicks. So thank you a lot. You are priceless dude
I miss "Bug Smashers" so much that I will use/utilize ANYTHING to get my "Bug Smashers" show back online despite the Copyrights and what-ever-is-holding-that-up ... Please. We're a lot of people enjoying debugging. Live. Or Semi-Live. Bug smashing is part of the process and we are thoroughly enjoying being witnesses of the process.
@@AlbandAquino disco did a sole citizen podcast last week explaining how hard it was to do bugsmashers because they had to fake the bug after the patch was applied to fix the bug to get the errors and fixes properly recorded.
keep up the great work Cig! You guys make alot of fans happy with both the details and the big stuff! :) I got a suggestion for ballistics, and that is that you can add magazines to ships that reload your ballistics once or twice with a delay after you emptied a magazine. Sort of like eve online handles their projectile or hybrid or missile weapons and turrets / launchers. You could add magazines for ships like mining modules work for mining laser heads for prospector / mole. Also you could add a cooling magazine that cools down energy weapon turrets faster perhaps and that works like a consumable too.
@@canniballistic555 that's not what he said. Just having the most HP doesnt accurately reflect the "effective" armor. I'm sure that CIG could put all the statistics that goes around a component, but question was for the components to reflect an overall health number for the ship. I think its unnecessary in that I would like the project to go gold sometime in my lifetime and there is already you tubers who test and provide all this information shortly after a patch anyway.
@@jeffreybleam5645 Youre getting attached to one specific thing they said. Its understandable the way the HP system works, though they believe its better to obfuscate the details so people CANT meta game, and thats a problem. Even Jared pointed it out to them but they outright shot him down so he just played it off rather than making an awkward point for nothing.
@@jeffreybleam5645 I do hope they'll at least clarify which shields have quicker regen and regen rate , I don't know where this info is, I always see it on sites like hardpoints or dmg calculator but the shield descriptions in game are very vague.
A great video, it's great to hear the devs thoughts on design decisions. Although I really disagree with some of the points: - When buying a car you do care about the top speed, the acceleration and other stats, you also care about the experience, it isn't one or the other - give us more data on components and ships! - If Erkul didn't exist, I would have a lot less fun making builds and figuring out how I want to put a ship together, there is literally no information in game and it put me off the ship loadouts entirely until I discovered Erkul. - S1 - S4 guns are not exclusive to light fighters, please stop balancing them with fighters being top priority - The distance argument didn't hold much weight, large ships now have to be on-top of each other and it's encouraging zerg/swarm tactics to take out large ships, give larger ships longer range than smaller ships...
My first "Star Citizen Live". I'm one of the many many disenfranchised players from another game that shall remain unnamed, loving Star Citizen so much. Wish I'd bought it much earlier. Only at the 1:18 point of the video and loving it, Maggie has a new fan :D
Welcome to the Verse. As an older gamer and bilateral amputee, one of my childhood heroes and favorite shows was Six Million Dollar Man... and your name reminded me of the character Oscar Goldman! Wish you the best, stay calm and don't count bugs.
21:32 You could have added a heat mechanic just for ballistics so players could not do long bursts. Not restrict the ammo that much. It also makes sense, in space, there is no medium to transfer the heat away from the barrels.
@@Verdigo76 I'm talking about the ship you are piloting say you are a captain of an 890 jump and you ask security to look at internal sensors to see where the intruders are.
@@jchardy007 This will come officially but it currently exists somewhat by checking your ship comms for people onboard. Also, have a wingman scan you too.
"We don't want ballistics used as alpha strike, we don't want them to be good t armor when armor is out, we don't want you to be use them for any sort of prolonged combat..." All I'm hearing is you guys don't want them in the game but aren't allowed to take them out.
It makes balance a nightmare, ESPECIALLY the Ares. Inferno will be either painfully OP or so useless just delete it from the game as you cannot swap. I think in the end they keep the Inferno, ditch the Ion. Then give the ability to swap as you do now for components and give two colors, white or black. The Ion gets the extra armor, whatever. Just make it the Ares…period. Give the ship team a break.
If they had ballistic weapons with proximity fuses, it would be something worth considering if they had ammo limitations but did roughly the same damage. Weapon design is so bland in SC atm.
Meta will always be there. No matter what you do , as long as there is variation , there is meta The competitive scene will always favor whatever does its job the best , the quickest and that will always bleed trough into the casual scene
@@CellDE If you make weapons or other equipment in SC situationally better than each other, but in situations that are equally as likely, and equally as better in their own preferred situation, thats balance. "Do I cater my weapons to heavy shields or heavy armour? I'll just take 2 weapons of each for an even loadout." Thats game balance.
@@canniballistic555 there will still be meta for the intended purpose. I didn't expect to kill an HH with an MSR. The whole "balancing" goal currently is just a gap filler for us to discuss about and ofc participat on testing. CiG sets the base values and let the backer give feedback, they making it really easy for themselves. In my mind they should only adjust the pitch, yaw, roll values and only the weapons. The shields shouldn't be touched, better "nerf" the current weapons....
I have an idea for the game, every time the player dies to a bug, AKA an unintended insta-death, have a xenomorph killing them animation play. It's like a crash report with flavor. This also makes it seem like intended gameplay. Beware the Bugs!
Okay so listen to the guy at 16:00 ..the way he said that sent alittle bit of a chill down my spine.. hopefully y'all won't have to keep re-doing work over and over again
Thanks Devs and Presenters! Please continue to work to solve the problem of larger ships and long range weapons; don't make this a game focused around the might of a single gladius taking down large ships that have no range of fire, speed, etc.
Mark Abent, so we meet again.... :-) Good to see and hear you again! Not gonna lie, I miss Bugsmashers. The catchy pitch perfect intro in particular :P
Yep. When I buy a minivan for my children, I don't care about if my children would be safe in a 30mph (47kph?) collision. I care about the experience...
"We've got enough desync" -Disco Lando. o7 space-man. On a different note, glad to hear that the future tech regarding armor and ship destruction are still on track. I agree that we need a "downed/dead" stated for ship like we'll have for players with the medical game play loop. This will give players time to internally repair or board ships. Along with the opportunity for salvage ship and repair ship game play.
The community will data mine every component and joint and do it with a smile. Besides, how are we supposed to do repair/find weakness from previous combat to exploit if we can't scan to see how damaged things are
Can we get more **stuff to do** on ships? Some ships have arcade cabinets, some have pool tables (Carrack's pool table needs to be re-done but correctly this time; that odd shape isn't going to work). I'd really like to see activities/games working on ships that have said items
CIG Devs: "240 rounds of ammo for a electrically driven Gatling gun is perfectly normal!" I wish they'd lay off the booze, this rebalance is a clusterfuck that's asking for so many suspensions of disbelief in an effort to fit in a box they want, that it's ruining immersion and any logical sense. Most ballistics were comically limited in ammo in 3.13, and instead of fix the useless ballistic repeaters, they decided to make all the other ballistics like them. Also CIG Devs: "We want to increase time to kill." and then patch notes "We've massively increased damage, and drastically reduced shield effectiveness, removing shields from some ships."
@@Wbroach24 nah, this'll work in vacuum. Psychics, not atmosphere effects. In atmosphere there's interaction with the air that keeps it point forward out to where it's not going to do damage. In vacuum, its shape is immaterial. Actually, you're better off with smoothbore rounds in space, to avoid this effect. See: th-cam.com/video/1VPfZ_XzisU/w-d-xo.html
Obfuscating the numbers will not stop a meta from being developed. Single "Meta-builds" are avoided by correctly balancing components, ship types, etc. Equal but distinct.
So concise! I tried explaining this in my own words, but it came out a rage induced hysteria of the frustration Im bound to feel when using similar weapons that are wildly different, or vise versa, and not being able to understand why its the case. Before I found Erkul, I was using the C-788, because it was easy to tell it was a good weapon, but after looking at Erkul and trying other weapons I found there was actually other weapons that, while not as broken as the Combine, were really good alternatives.
Yogi do not really understand what those question about TTK and Health per Ship Parts meant. They were referring to theory crafting, so no need to involve piloting or situations, just like the health thing, people will just try it on their own. They will retro engineer by testing a lot even if their values are wrong the percentage that they will get, let's say for alpha damage, how many shot/ammo, at what point hull/shield change color, will close enough to reality. You can still try, but at some point it we be cracked and at the end people who want this type of data, will get it. Tldr: people will always create meta for things to work better and understand how they work. I mean that's how the human race works, it's everywhere in what wime did and do.
@Kirito Kagasaki and you're not partially wrong too but like yogi you misunderstand the meaning of this. Those question were not about situations like both of you try to add to it. But rather only focusing on the theory crafting. Then following this same theory crafting, you can then expand to situations. That's the idea. But trying to involve situations before is like trying to figure'ing out a problem's every situations. You want to break thing step by step, part by part and then works things out with what you have. I'm not saying it's perfect, I'm saying it's theory craft and does not involve situations. I'm an evocati and trust me, people goes nuts doing this to dissect things. In general the sc community start with data mining, then verifying them, then testing with more realistic gameplay situations. Some of those data then becomes public (most of the time by notoriety) but most of the times they are still privates between orgs that do this on a weekly basis. I'm not debating any fight situations, that's a complete waste of time imo, I've read enough people talking about environmental stuff, piloting skill, ships loadouts preferences, and the more "random" values you include to some sort of topic the less your information/result is meaningful especially in the state of the game. Again, step by step, theory crafting with "accurate" data, then developing ideas but not the way around. There are already 3 people's work from the community that do this. The famous data spreadsheet, but it's raw data. Then there is Erkul and hardpoint.io to cover ships items comparisons and even loadouts. And then, there is SPAT and another tool that I don't recall the name of it that do dissect and compare how ships compare to each others. There are other tools for others areas of the game like mining, route trading, fps weapons. Etc. I've been here from the 0.8, I feel old and like I've seen too much of it 😂 Their work should be about how to create enough dynamic situations and how about to balance the theory crafting. Not to fight against it, which is like what Jared 1lso stated, its impossible. This would generate a more organic gameplay, also harder because players learns faster with static gameplay, but better since we're asking for a "easy to play, hard to master" type of game.
I'd enjoy Ballistics alot more if the limited ammo was slightly more, but placed into changable magazines that take X mins to reload, so they remain very much balanced but its not just 'empty' and done as in a few minutes you get a bit more pew pew before empty. Perhaps even introducing ammo types through a system like that.
missed the session :( anyone know if they have ever discussed larger ships like the hammerhead being able to reload ballistics internally? crew memeber grabs ammo from hold and pops panel to reload guns as an example
@@InternetCity There are ship buying locations at the main landing zones on the planet Hurston (Lorville @ New Deal, at the starport) and ArcCorp (Area 18, main city).
@@InternetCity My pleasure, it's what a community is supposed to do. Feel free to come back here and shoot me questions anytime. Been doing SC since 2016, I have knowledge on nearly everything EXCEPT staying alive in combat. ;)
Man the whole episode was good except for the thought process on specs. I appreciate Disco pressing the point a bit. Edited: Ran across Yogi's better explanation and reassurance on some base specs.
really i know this is the hardest part for you all. and id really like to say to you all awesome job, you are creating what has never bin there before. thank you so much for all that you are doing for us the fans! wing commander will always be with me! just do me one favor take the wings offof the freelancer... pls
you need to make components/weaponry have effectiveness under different circumstances. you had something going with the qt drives, where you are compromising time for distance. DO THE SAME WITH EVERYTHING! a class 3 stealth shield might recharge faster, but has a higher em/ir. one repeater might shoot farther or faster, but another one deals more damage. a cooler might output more but has a higher signature. etc.
So... you guys knew that the only form of damage mitigation for large ships was face tanking via shields... and then you gave those same large ships a longer damage delay and lower regeneration % than the ships that are supposed to be maneuvering as a form of damage mitigation? I don't follow the logic.
Yogi: We don't want players to use the numbers to determine a ship performance (42:44) Also Yogi: We can measure a ship's performance by looking at the numbers (58:33)
When player ships won't be "blowing up" and in stead just be disabled, will this be the same behaviour for AI ships ? And so when you do ai bounty missions and you "disable" their ship, is the bounty considered completed?
@@sttosin that would actually be cool yeah, so you need to have an avenger stalker/blue with cells right? you can't simply do that with ships like a star runner...
I gota question about the vehicles.We got a tow truck ship, refueling ship, what if we had a septic tank emptying ship? preferably with an option to g o inside the container??
Wow. 2 minutes in and everyone is just 'meh' ... So super excited about being back from vacation? Why do I get the feeling that everyone had no vacation/ are sick to be back on cam? Jared certainly seems both bumbling, unenthusiastic and unprepared.
Sabre: You want additional information for why we think it's bad or pushed in the wrong direction. Ok. How's this for context: robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3/thread/alpha-3-14-patch-watch-initial-weapons-amp-shields/4186381
Wish someone would nail them down on energy weapons, the "projectile speed" which like ballistics can't be realistic, needs to be significantly faster in the 3km/s to 4km/s range, with a limit out to 2k before damage fall off and kill the projectile at 4-5k. These are significant changes needed for the "joust" vs "knife" combat styles that are desired. Imagine not having to aim your pip blindly at an off HUD reticle, while trying to maintain a 120m/s circle from 500m away with laser repeaters.
The response of the team regarding ship components data and diagnostic tools seemed illogical. For the following reasons: 1) knowing the state of a ship component I imagined would be part of the engineering play repair loop. Knowing the components state and endurance would help prioritize repairs, 2) part of the engineering career path appeal of components customization , nevermind over clocking in the science path. Think gear head I think there is better ways to avoid meta. Such creating a randomized variance within a certain range of hp, performance, armor, increased costs,etc. I am thinking something similar to silicone lottery with CPU. Another layer could be added by requiring that certain premium components require equal premium adjacent components to work.
Please rethink what you're doing with Ballistics. We like firing longer bursts because it's fun! Fun being the point. You are balancing in the wrong direction. Longer time to kill is also fun. Crewmates in larger ships should be running around to keep the ship under attack in the fight or escape. Did you even consider fun? What's fun? Cris said fun was the point. Pick a different weapon to be the alpha strike weapon.
I think I get what y’all are trying to with not wanting to give us a hull remaining number or go remaining number. Then using the car analogy. So what I’m getting is that when your sitting in your car it has minimal warning lights. Low fuel, engine temp, oil, and check engine. So is that what your shooting for. Is that when our ships get damaged enough a check engine like light will pop on? Cause I can see where the gameplay loop can kick in where we then need to go into the shop to see what’s wrong with it.
I prefer to use ballistics because they are a lot more awesome. Now they're not really viable to use as the primary weapon. They're mostly just a burst damage supplement. Not really a fan of that change.
Can't believe they chose to simply talk about range as a server/client issue. Yeah that's right in some respects, but they should've gone with the "effective range" argument. Yes ballistics have a long "potential" range, but that doesn't necessarily mean they have a long "effective" range. IE how fast the ship you are shooting at is moving. How fast is the ammo velocity. How effective your ships computer is at calculating expected vectors to tell you where to shoot. How reliably your shots will still hit the target should they change direction/velocity/angular momentum dependent on target distance vs ammo velocity, because ammo fires in a straight line. If a target changes direction, the ammo you fired is not going to magically still hit the target simply because you "aimed at the pip". In other words, total "theoretical" range is an entirely different concept from "effective" range. Instead, he chose to talk about hitting a hammerhead from 20km out and there's nothing he can do? Uh... here's a thought... He can move! Lets see how "effective" the attackers "infinite range" is then. I feel like Bill Engvall right now. Trainer: "What are you going to do if a huge football player charges at you FULL SPEED?" - Bill: "I would just step out of the way." Even on Earth right now. Let's say you can see a target a mile away. You point your gun directly at him and fire.... Will it hit? No, not likely. Why? because you didn't take into account gravity, air resistance, wind speed, nor a whole host of other factors. The result is that bullet would likely hit the ground and off center long before it got anywhere near the target. And even if you did account for "those" variables, if your target chose to move or change directions just as you fired, you're screwed. Why? Because he moved out of the line of fire "before" the bullet could close the distance. The further out you are from the target, the more time the target has to change it's "exposure" to incoming fire. That's the difference between "theoretical" and "effective" range. That's the explanation they should've gone with. Yes the server/client explanation is still important and should be culled as much as possible once no viable target/victim is possible. But a simple flat "range" explanation doesn't help the game, nor a player who tries to apply a complex concept into overly simplified terms.
I got to say it I tried using it with the heartseeker last night and I absolutely f****** hate capacitors. Even full-out emptying every last energy weapon round into a Gladius would not take it down and it took me about 15 minutes to kill one Gladius. That's not fun that's just lame
Sadly as long as ballistics keep the pitiful capacity they have now I'm not using them on my ships anymore. It's energy weapons only for me now. I feel most of the ballistics didn't have a high enough capacity in 3.13 and with these changes in 3.14 I'll never use them anymore. What I'd really love is the ability to get rid of some/all of your ships missiles and instead replace the room they took up with more ammo storage for the ships guns instead.
This week we are trying to create more Miners and Traders, lol... I mean, I understand balancing & specialization, but they increased the engagement time way to long ... With the long reload time + the extremely limited ammo count(seriously 12 shots on some guns) you end up in a lot of cases not able to even kill the other ships, or it takes 30 minutes to do a 10,000 UEC bounty hunting mission ... I did notice it got a tad better after a few revisions, but not any where they should be... Some of the changes are lore breaking as well, energy turrets should be limited by power settings & heat, ballistics should be ammo count & heat.. if its there its defiantly not obvious, especially since overclock and over power are gone?? I hear a lot of "what we want" in their descriptions.. is this what the "players" want? Mining for life lol ...
Timestamp/Summary - Large Umbrella Category Breakdown :
4:05 - [COMBAT & WEAPONS] Ship weapons/Combat changes/Weapon Range Changes/Armor/Physicalized Damage/Future-Proofing Tech/Balancing. Biggest chunk of the episode, stuff spread out other places. Time to Kill at 36:45
28:35 - [SCANNING] Mostly visual changes in 3.14, Future: EM+IR Signatures to classify actions (EMP, QT, PINGS, Etc.) Ping scheduling/timers. Ambient obstructions (Gas clouds, asteroids, etc.) Different scanner functions per ship at 46:23
34:07 - [GENERAL SHIP BALANCING] Balancing isn't perfectly where they wanted it, it's a hard game to balance. It's iterative, they're working on it. As a foundation the devs are happy with it. De-emphasis on data mining/meta-gameplay, spreadsheet type decisions. They emphasis should be on experience rather than data. They don't want HP to be the most important number or be the reason you make decisions.
48:20 - [FLIGHT & TOLERANCES] G-Forces/Human tolerance for different directions and axis of movement. Not in 3.14 yet, planned for future.
49:06 - [CAPACITORS] Each ship has ship-bound capacitor value (not currently physicalized) items for varying categories (shield capacitor, engine capacitor, weapon capacitor, etc.) Disabling 2 of 3 weapons would leave the remaining one weapon with a larger ammo count (disabling shields would have no effect on the weapon capacitor.) Giving power to shield capacitor slightly boosts shield hardness. Giving power to engines makes the boost more efficient and a little more powerful. NOT THE FINAL ITERATION. More changes will come in the future.
54:44 - [GENERAL / RAPID FIRE QUESTIONS] 54:50 Shield hardening. 55:40 Capacitor Profiles. 55:57 "The Sabre flies bad." Ask better questions. lol. 59:10 Conclusions/Wrap up. This patch is a foundation upon which to build a new balancing scheme.
Legend
Thanks for this. I like to watch these but don't always have an hour spend looking for the 10mins of content I'm interested in. Cheers!!
Thank youuu
I see Mark and my brain plays "BUG SMASHERRRRRRS" every time.
They gotta bring that back, one of my favorite shows ever especially if I'm coding along side haha
@@skater15153 Jared said Mark got promoted and doesn't have the time and he also said it was one of the most intensive segments in terms of dev time. He talked about it on the Sol Citizens talk show.
@@skater15153 they are not bringing it back because he had to take a fixed build, rebreak it, then replicate how it was fixed and it took up a lot of dev time. Would love to see a less work intensive version of it showing screenshots of all the fun glitches and code going haywire form the bug fix documentation.
@@jimmy37591 You wouldn't need to rebreak it. That's what source control is for. But ya, the prep would still be annoying and disruptive so it makes sense why they wouldn't have one of their leads do that these days.
@@skater15153 Disco said that they had to fake the bugs when he was on sol citizen's show. I would have imagined it would be possible to use the bad build as source material but apparently it was easier to fake the bug.
Love you guys, never let the haters get you down, This game WILL end up being the best dam space game ever.. eventually...I can wait.
yupp, and by the time its there, they will be SO far ahead of others games, other games will NEVER catch up :D
I still find it amazing how much this company actually cares and listens to the community. Like Mark at the end "Bad" does not help me fix it; please give details. They really do browse a lot of forums and get input. Some of which they even use !?!
I love it
BUGSMASHERS GUY! HEY EVERYONE, ITS THE BUGSMASHERS GUY!
Buuugsmaaashaaaaaas
He has a name.
Abent is the best in the industry!
I prefer "BUGSMOOSHER"
I understand that Star Citizen is a spaceship game and need many spaceships... But, i think there are too FEW land vehicles and a LOT of terrain to explore on planets and moons.
It would be good to build "a production line" focused on Land Vehicles and Suborbital Transport.
True, still more E:D ha...I feel kind of sorry of EDevs
This ^^ also give the nomad a land mode it literally hovers when landed aint no reason it can't be used like a dragonfly
Star Citizen stopped being a mere spaceship game long ago. "Universe sim" would be a more accuracte description now. I think once we start getting more actual planet side content we'll start seeing more ground vehicles.
A reason to use my tank...please ❤
@@no2475 I'm really hoping that when they get the planet tech with rivers, that same tech can be used to make paths and roads. Some places like Lorville can have some ground connections, even if they are just simple dirt roads connecting the city to the nearest outposts. There can be paths between outposts too (for bikes and on foot). Going through a forest, along a river, around mountains etc, that would look amazing.
Huckabee you are the greatest community voice. Thank You for being so great and fun, never stop please.
This week of the week, we talked about this week in Star Citizen. Week. 😂❤
This week! The Weak of the Week will weaken when the weakest of the weak from last week's Weak Week complete the week!
Thank you all CIG, and thank you a LOT Jared for your works. What you do is an absolute necessity for SC and us. Thank you for your respect and to share with us and every new comers, what SC, CIG is. And having dialogues with everybody, being transparent and showing the stuff.
Not every studios does that ( could be even none..), and even worst. Other studios are treating their fan base like dicks.
So thank you a lot. You are priceless dude
Today's drinking game is to take a shot everytime you hear the work week.
I miss "Bug Smashers" so much that I will use/utilize ANYTHING to get my "Bug Smashers" show back online despite the Copyrights and what-ever-is-holding-that-up ...
Please. We're a lot of people enjoying debugging. Live. Or Semi-Live. Bug smashing is part of the process and we are thoroughly enjoying being witnesses of the process.
@@AlbandAquino disco did a sole citizen podcast last week explaining how hard it was to do bugsmashers because they had to fake the bug after the patch was applied to fix the bug to get the errors and fixes properly recorded.
Great show, thanks guys!
keep up the great work Cig! You guys make alot of fans happy with both the details and the big stuff! :)
I got a suggestion for ballistics, and that is that you can add magazines to ships that reload your ballistics once or twice with a delay after you emptied a magazine.
Sort of like eve online handles their projectile or hybrid or missile weapons and turrets / launchers.
You could add magazines for ships like mining modules work for mining laser heads for prospector / mole.
Also you could add a cooling magazine that cools down energy weapon turrets faster perhaps and that works like a consumable too.
“Players will just do it anyway”
Scams don’t plan like that. I like the approach to game development shown here.
But when players want to number crunch... no no no cant have that! Its better you dont know! We know best!
@@canniballistic555 that's not what he said. Just having the most HP doesnt accurately reflect the "effective" armor. I'm sure that CIG could put all the statistics that goes around a component, but question was for the components to reflect an overall health number for the ship. I think its unnecessary in that I would like the project to go gold sometime in my lifetime and there is already you tubers who test and provide all this information shortly after a patch anyway.
@@jeffreybleam5645 Youre getting attached to one specific thing they said.
Its understandable the way the HP system works, though they believe its better to obfuscate the details so people CANT meta game, and thats a problem.
Even Jared pointed it out to them but they outright shot him down so he just played it off rather than making an awkward point for nothing.
@@jeffreybleam5645 I do hope they'll at least clarify which shields have quicker regen and regen rate , I don't know where this info is, I always see it on sites like hardpoints or dmg calculator but the shield descriptions in game are very vague.
@@canniballistic555 Yes, otherwise none would volunteer to come in his show in the future.
Great show gents thank you.
A great video, it's great to hear the devs thoughts on design decisions.
Although I really disagree with some of the points:
- When buying a car you do care about the top speed, the acceleration and other stats, you also care about the experience, it isn't one or the other - give us more data on components and ships!
- If Erkul didn't exist, I would have a lot less fun making builds and figuring out how I want to put a ship together, there is literally no information in game and it put me off the ship loadouts entirely until I discovered Erkul.
- S1 - S4 guns are not exclusive to light fighters, please stop balancing them with fighters being top priority
- The distance argument didn't hold much weight, large ships now have to be on-top of each other and it's encouraging zerg/swarm tactics to take out large ships, give larger ships longer range than smaller ships...
Don't fret Jared. I get your movie references.
/me unmelts Sabre. JK. Good vid. Thanks for the deep dive! Definitely the best Star Citizen video I've seen all day...maybe all weeeeeek!
My first "Star Citizen Live". I'm one of the many many disenfranchised players from another game that shall remain unnamed, loving Star Citizen so much. Wish I'd bought it much earlier. Only at the 1:18 point of the video and loving it, Maggie has a new fan :D
Welcome to the Verse. As an older gamer and bilateral amputee, one of my childhood heroes and favorite shows was Six Million Dollar Man... and your name reminded me of the character Oscar Goldman! Wish you the best, stay calm and don't count bugs.
Loved the kitty! 😇 cool changes coming to balance! Fun stuff!
There is obvious counterplay to extreme distance balistics. You can move...
True... but that's even greater strain on the servers. 😅
Awesome stuff!
Yogi Klatt you are great!
Starcitizen need these crazy yearly citizencon events again! I think these events kept the hype alive
21:32 You could have added a heat mechanic just for ballistics so players could not do long bursts.
Not restrict the ammo that much.
It also makes sense, in space, there is no medium to transfer the heat away from the barrels.
Scanning interior of the ships for friend & foe & life forms etc. needs to be a thing.
If you turn on scanning mode and keep your reticle on the ship it'll give you a readout of life signs as well as who the ship belongs to.
@@Verdigo76 I'm talking about the ship you are piloting say you are a captain of an 890 jump and you ask security to look at internal sensors to see where the intruders are.
@@jchardy007 This will come officially but it currently exists somewhat by checking your ship comms for people onboard. Also, have a wingman scan you too.
This game will provide dynamics for what you want to achieve and that's its shine. Not the next meta rush. Stay on the dynamic path.
"We don't want ballistics used as alpha strike, we don't want them to be good t armor when armor is out, we don't want you to be use them for any sort of prolonged combat..."
All I'm hearing is you guys don't want them in the game but aren't allowed to take them out.
It makes balance a nightmare, ESPECIALLY the Ares. Inferno will be either painfully OP or so useless just delete it from the game as you cannot swap. I think in the end they keep the Inferno, ditch the Ion. Then give the ability to swap as you do now for components and give two colors, white or black. The Ion gets the extra armor, whatever. Just make it the Ares…period. Give the ship team a break.
If they had ballistic weapons with proximity fuses, it would be something worth considering if they had ammo limitations but did roughly the same damage.
Weapon design is so bland in SC atm.
awesome loved the PTU. new changes are great.
no
Who could possibly dislike this??
Now we need a Maggie plush
Yes
Funcos or plushies of all our favorite devs that we've "met" on-screen or in person over the years. 😜
Yesssss
Meta will always be there.
No matter what you do , as long as there is variation , there is meta
The competitive scene will always favor whatever does its job the best , the quickest and that will always bleed trough into the casual scene
Balancing is just a word for people that don't understand there is difference in life ... well mainly its about define vase values just to start ...
@@CellDE If you make weapons or other equipment in SC situationally better than each other, but in situations that are equally as likely, and equally as better in their own preferred situation, thats balance.
"Do I cater my weapons to heavy shields or heavy armour? I'll just take 2 weapons of each for an even loadout."
Thats game balance.
You know you are approaching a well balanced system when you have people arguing about what the meta load out is
@@canniballistic555 there will still be meta for the intended purpose. I didn't expect to kill an HH with an MSR. The whole "balancing" goal currently is just a gap filler for us to discuss about and ofc participat on testing. CiG sets the base values and let the backer give feedback, they making it really easy for themselves.
In my mind they should only adjust the pitch, yaw, roll values and only the weapons. The shields shouldn't be touched, better "nerf" the current weapons....
I have an idea for the game, every time the player dies to a bug, AKA an unintended insta-death, have a xenomorph killing them animation play. It's like a crash report with flavor. This also makes it seem like intended gameplay. Beware the Bugs!
Okay so listen to the guy at 16:00 ..the way he said that sent alittle bit of a chill down my spine.. hopefully y'all won't have to keep re-doing work over and over again
Thanks Devs and Presenters! Please continue to work to solve the problem of larger ships and long range weapons; don't make this a game focused around the might of a single gladius taking down large ships that have no range of fire, speed, etc.
Mark Abent, so we meet again.... :-) Good to see and hear you again! Not gonna lie, I miss Bugsmashers. The catchy pitch perfect intro in particular :P
Great video that everybody should watch and understand.
Yep. When I buy a minivan for my children, I don't care about if my children would be safe in a 30mph (47kph?) collision. I care about the experience...
"We've got enough desync" -Disco Lando. o7 space-man. On a different note, glad to hear that the future tech regarding armor and ship destruction are still on track. I agree that we need a "downed/dead" stated for ship like we'll have for players with the medical game play loop. This will give players time to internally repair or board ships. Along with the opportunity for salvage ship and repair ship game play.
Excited for the new update.
The community will data mine every component and joint and do it with a smile.
Besides, how are we supposed to do repair/find weakness from previous combat to exploit if we can't scan to see how damaged things are
They could increase the chance of jamming/overheating to favor burst instead of prolonged stream.
Can we get more **stuff to do** on ships? Some ships have arcade cabinets, some have pool tables (Carrack's pool table needs to be re-done but correctly this time; that odd shape isn't going to work).
I'd really like to see activities/games working on ships that have said items
CIG Devs: "240 rounds of ammo for a electrically driven Gatling gun is perfectly normal!"
I wish they'd lay off the booze, this rebalance is a clusterfuck that's asking for so many suspensions of disbelief in an effort to fit in a box they want, that it's ruining immersion and any logical sense. Most ballistics were comically limited in ammo in 3.13, and instead of fix the useless ballistic repeaters, they decided to make all the other ballistics like them.
Also CIG Devs: "We want to increase time to kill." and then patch notes "We've massively increased damage, and drastically reduced shield effectiveness, removing shields from some ships."
3.14 SOON
a spinning bullet will, eventually, flip over. Physics. So limited combat range is entirely valid.
In atmosphere yeah that makes sense.
@@Wbroach24 nah, this'll work in vacuum. Psychics, not atmosphere effects. In atmosphere there's interaction with the air that keeps it point forward out to where it's not going to do damage. In vacuum, its shape is immaterial. Actually, you're better off with smoothbore rounds in space, to avoid this effect.
See: th-cam.com/video/1VPfZ_XzisU/w-d-xo.html
Obfuscating the numbers will not stop a meta from being developed. Single "Meta-builds" are avoided by correctly balancing components, ship types, etc. Equal but distinct.
So concise!
I tried explaining this in my own words, but it came out a rage induced hysteria of the frustration Im bound to feel when using similar weapons that are wildly different, or vise versa, and not being able to understand why its the case.
Before I found Erkul, I was using the C-788, because it was easy to tell it was a good weapon, but after looking at Erkul and trying other weapons I found there was actually other weapons that, while not as broken as the Combine, were really good alternatives.
I think that's exactly where they are aiming but can't hit the mark without the other tools in the toolbox.
love you all, love you Jared
0:12 Jered giving away the REAL developer secrets right there...
Yogi do not really understand what those question about TTK and Health per Ship Parts meant.
They were referring to theory crafting, so no need to involve piloting or situations, just like the health thing, people will just try it on their own. They will retro engineer by testing a lot even if their values are wrong the percentage that they will get, let's say for alpha damage, how many shot/ammo, at what point hull/shield change color, will close enough to reality.
You can still try, but at some point it we be cracked and at the end people who want this type of data, will get it.
Tldr: people will always create meta for things to work better and understand how they work. I mean that's how the human race works, it's everywhere in what wime did and do.
@Kirito Kagasaki and you're not partially wrong too but like yogi you misunderstand the meaning of this.
Those question were not about situations like both of you try to add to it. But rather only focusing on the theory crafting.
Then following this same theory crafting, you can then expand to situations. That's the idea.
But trying to involve situations before is like trying to figure'ing out a problem's every situations. You want to break thing step by step, part by part and then works things out with what you have.
I'm not saying it's perfect, I'm saying it's theory craft and does not involve situations.
I'm an evocati and trust me, people goes nuts doing this to dissect things.
In general the sc community start with data mining, then verifying them, then testing with more realistic gameplay situations. Some of those data then becomes public (most of the time by notoriety) but most of the times they are still privates between orgs that do this on a weekly basis.
I'm not debating any fight situations, that's a complete waste of time imo, I've read enough people talking about environmental stuff, piloting skill, ships loadouts preferences, and the more "random" values you include to some sort of topic the less your information/result is meaningful especially in the state of the game.
Again, step by step, theory crafting with "accurate" data, then developing ideas but not the way around.
There are already 3 people's work from the community that do this.
The famous data spreadsheet, but it's raw data. Then there is Erkul and hardpoint.io to cover ships items comparisons and even loadouts. And then, there is SPAT and another tool that I don't recall the name of it that do dissect and compare how ships compare to each others.
There are other tools for others areas of the game like mining, route trading, fps weapons. Etc.
I've been here from the 0.8, I feel old and like I've seen too much of it 😂
Their work should be about how to create enough dynamic situations and how about to balance the theory crafting. Not to fight against it, which is like what Jared 1lso stated, its impossible. This would generate a more organic gameplay, also harder because players learns faster with static gameplay, but better since we're asking for a "easy to play, hard to master" type of game.
Having a voice exactly like Bonzi Buddy must be tough.
mark: " a lot of it now is 'how do you get away from lets blowing people up?'". because thats the fun bit!
1200 meters is WAYY too close
Yeah, it’s more within 2000-2500 meters
Actual spacecraft 1200m apart would have klaxons and alarms screaming proximity and collision alarms like the world was ending.
The bigger question are the changes fun, they feel grindy rather than fun...
I'd enjoy Ballistics alot more if the limited ammo was slightly more, but placed into changable magazines that take X mins to reload, so they remain very much balanced but its not just 'empty' and done as in a few minutes you get a bit more pew pew before empty. Perhaps even introducing ammo types through a system like that.
missed the session :( anyone know if they have ever discussed larger ships like the hammerhead being able to reload ballistics internally? crew memeber grabs ammo from hold and pops panel to reload guns as an example
The phrase for today is "NO META!"
“Is this going to be a stand-up fight, sir, or another Bug Hunt”
I just watched that last night.
Shouldnt TTK be TTD (time to disable)?
Edit: Dammit, jared copied me xD
Physicalise ballistic ammo and you will see how much you can carry especially when you need to put feed chutes etc in.
Where do I get that UEE Navy hat?? please I must have it in my life O_O
Imagine waited for so long for this game only for reviewer give this a 7/10.
I'm trying to buy a big ship to play this how do I get this?!!!!
That depends. Do you want to buy said ship with ingame credits or are you planning to spend real money? Also, how big is "big"?
@@Jaco_Schutte credits I believe I bought a starter pack and I’m completely lost at gameplay lol
@@InternetCity There are ship buying locations at the main landing zones on the planet Hurston (Lorville @ New Deal, at the starport) and ArcCorp (Area 18, main city).
@@ericwollaston5654 thank you so much!!!
@@InternetCity My pleasure, it's what a community is supposed to do. Feel free to come back here and shoot me questions anytime. Been doing SC since 2016, I have knowledge on nearly everything EXCEPT staying alive in combat. ;)
Man the whole episode was good except for the thought process on specs.
I appreciate Disco pressing the point a bit.
Edited: Ran across Yogi's better explanation and reassurance on some base specs.
I feel like cannons should be long range
really i know this is the hardest part for you all. and id really like to say to you all awesome job, you are creating what has never bin there before. thank you so much for all that you are doing for us the fans! wing commander will always be with me! just do me one favor take the wings offof the freelancer... pls
the mood in these livestream is "talk or you get fired"
especially at 1:05 Jared's personality is so Snob
you need to make components/weaponry have effectiveness under different circumstances. you had something going with the qt drives, where you are compromising time for distance. DO THE SAME WITH EVERYTHING! a class 3 stealth shield might recharge faster, but has a higher em/ir. one repeater might shoot farther or faster, but another one deals more damage. a cooler might output more but has a higher signature. etc.
Maggie! Cutest supervisor heheh
So... you guys knew that the only form of damage mitigation for large ships was face tanking via shields... and then you gave those same large ships a longer damage delay and lower regeneration % than the ships that are supposed to be maneuvering as a form of damage mitigation? I don't follow the logic.
I heard they are going to separate the sabre raven from the sabre lineup and just call it the Raven!
Yay
You look a bit tired Disco, take care mate! :)
Yogi: We don't want players to use the numbers to determine a ship performance (42:44)
Also Yogi: We can measure a ship's performance by looking at the numbers (58:33)
Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaark!
When player ships won't be "blowing up" and in stead just be disabled, will this be the same behaviour for AI ships ? And so when you do ai bounty missions and you "disable" their ship, is the bounty considered completed?
@@sttosin that would actually be cool yeah, so you need to have an avenger stalker/blue with cells right? you can't simply do that with ships like a star runner...
TIL CiG hates meta slaves lol. It's a nice change of pace for me coming from games like WoW, GW2, and even War Thunder.
We neeeed star citizen for the New consoles
I gota question about the vehicles.We got a tow truck ship, refueling ship, what if we had a septic tank emptying ship? preferably with an option to g o inside the container??
a ship that is for making server meshing good, or a squadron 42 making beta available ship.
STOP IT! DONT GIVE THEM THOSE TYPES OF IDEAS
starfarerer just change the cargo bags tanks so on
Wow. 2 minutes in and everyone is just 'meh' ... So super excited about being back from vacation? Why do I get the feeling that everyone had no vacation/ are sick to be back on cam? Jared certainly seems both bumbling, unenthusiastic and unprepared.
and that is different from regular Jared how?
Sabre: You want additional information for why we think it's bad or pushed in the wrong direction. Ok. How's this for context: robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3/thread/alpha-3-14-patch-watch-initial-weapons-amp-shields/4186381
I would love to get into the PTU but you have not fixed my issue that I put to the issue council yet. It been plaguing me from the beginning of wave 1
Wish someone would nail them down on energy weapons, the "projectile speed" which like ballistics can't be realistic, needs to be significantly faster in the 3km/s to 4km/s range, with a limit out to 2k before damage fall off and kill the projectile at 4-5k. These are significant changes needed for the "joust" vs "knife" combat styles that are desired. Imagine not having to aim your pip blindly at an off HUD reticle, while trying to maintain a 120m/s circle from 500m away with laser repeaters.
Sabre is suppose to be a space superiority fighter it shouldn't handle bad
Sometimes, vehicles
The response of the team regarding ship components data and diagnostic tools seemed illogical. For the following reasons: 1) knowing the state of a ship component I imagined would be part of the engineering play repair loop. Knowing the components state and endurance would help prioritize repairs, 2) part of the engineering career path appeal of components customization , nevermind over clocking in the science path. Think gear head
I think there is better ways to avoid meta. Such creating a randomized variance within a certain range of hp, performance, armor, increased costs,etc. I am thinking something similar to silicone lottery with CPU. Another layer could be added by requiring that certain premium components require equal premium adjacent components to work.
call the ship by its name: the talon or karthu'al =)
Please rethink what you're doing with Ballistics. We like firing longer bursts because it's fun! Fun being the point. You are balancing in the wrong direction. Longer time to kill is also fun. Crewmates in larger ships should be running around to keep the ship under attack in the fight or escape. Did you even consider fun? What's fun? Cris said fun was the point. Pick a different weapon to be the alpha strike weapon.
When are we getting a sci-fi revolver, cowboy hats, and brown leather dusters?
Look for the Coda revolver
@@UpperKS When is that scheduled to release?
@@nobob8564 it's out and in-game! But I just double checked, and it's not an actual revolver, just kinda plays like one.
starcitizen.tools/Coda_Pistol
@@UpperKS Not even close to acceptable.
We need revolvers, or we can't properly be a space cowboy, damnit!
@@nobob8564 i feel that
I think I get what y’all are trying to with not wanting to give us a hull remaining number or go remaining number. Then using the car analogy. So what I’m getting is that when your sitting in your car it has minimal warning lights. Low fuel, engine temp, oil, and check engine. So is that what your shooting for. Is that when our ships get damaged enough a check engine like light will pop on? Cause I can see where the gameplay loop can kick in where we then need to go into the shop to see what’s wrong with it.
MAKE THE MSR GREAT AGAIN
It is.
Good data runner
Yup, its junk now
ROLL OUT 3.14 TO LIVE
Fun jokes! :)
It's official boys: the better part of 10 years! :-)
Madness. A whole decade.
I prefer to use ballistics because they are a lot more awesome. Now they're not really viable to use as the primary weapon. They're mostly just a burst damage supplement. Not really a fan of that change.
yaaay lets goo
Thanks, for the update!
Can't believe they chose to simply talk about range as a server/client issue. Yeah that's right in some respects, but they should've gone with the "effective range" argument. Yes ballistics have a long "potential" range, but that doesn't necessarily mean they have a long "effective" range. IE how fast the ship you are shooting at is moving. How fast is the ammo velocity. How effective your ships computer is at calculating expected vectors to tell you where to shoot. How reliably your shots will still hit the target should they change direction/velocity/angular momentum dependent on target distance vs ammo velocity, because ammo fires in a straight line. If a target changes direction, the ammo you fired is not going to magically still hit the target simply because you "aimed at the pip". In other words, total "theoretical" range is an entirely different concept from "effective" range. Instead, he chose to talk about hitting a hammerhead from 20km out and there's nothing he can do? Uh... here's a thought... He can move! Lets see how "effective" the attackers "infinite range" is then.
I feel like Bill Engvall right now. Trainer: "What are you going to do if a huge football player charges at you FULL SPEED?" - Bill: "I would just step out of the way."
Even on Earth right now. Let's say you can see a target a mile away. You point your gun directly at him and fire.... Will it hit? No, not likely. Why? because you didn't take into account gravity, air resistance, wind speed, nor a whole host of other factors. The result is that bullet would likely hit the ground and off center long before it got anywhere near the target. And even if you did account for "those" variables, if your target chose to move or change directions just as you fired, you're screwed. Why? Because he moved out of the line of fire "before" the bullet could close the distance. The further out you are from the target, the more time the target has to change it's "exposure" to incoming fire. That's the difference between "theoretical" and "effective" range. That's the explanation they should've gone with. Yes the server/client explanation is still important and should be culled as much as possible once no viable target/victim is possible. But a simple flat "range" explanation doesn't help the game, nor a player who tries to apply a complex concept into overly simplified terms.
I got to say it I tried using it with the heartseeker last night and I absolutely f****** hate capacitors. Even full-out emptying every last energy weapon round into a Gladius would not take it down and it took me about 15 minutes to kill one Gladius. That's not fun that's just lame
maybe it's just you? Try more specific targeting, as noted in the video.
@@thekaxmax Thabk you captain obvious. I hadn't tried that. 😅
Sadly as long as ballistics keep the pitiful capacity they have now I'm not using them on my ships anymore. It's energy weapons only for me now. I feel most of the ballistics didn't have a high enough capacity in 3.13 and with these changes in 3.14 I'll never use them anymore.
What I'd really love is the ability to get rid of some/all of your ships missiles and instead replace the room they took up with more ammo storage for the ships guns instead.
This week we are trying to create more Miners and Traders, lol... I mean, I understand balancing & specialization, but they increased the engagement time way to long ... With the long reload time + the extremely limited ammo count(seriously 12 shots on some guns) you end up in a lot of cases not able to even kill the other ships, or it takes 30 minutes to do a 10,000 UEC bounty hunting mission ... I did notice it got a tad better after a few revisions, but not any where they should be... Some of the changes are lore breaking as well, energy turrets should be limited by power settings & heat, ballistics should be ammo count & heat.. if its there its defiantly not obvious, especially since overclock and over power are gone?? I hear a lot of "what we want" in their descriptions.. is this what the "players" want? Mining for life lol ...