Star Citizen The Perseus Will Suck (but it doesnt have to)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 มิ.ย. 2023
- Title says it all. the Perseus as is will be terrible. but it doesn't have to be, stick around and watch the video to findout why it will be trash and how to fix it.
Also i mispoke and said "Picket ship" like 20 times in the video.
I want to clarify it is a Frontline brawler/skirmisher When in a fleet. That is its role in a group battle.. But when its alone or out on patrol with a couple fighters, then yes its part of the picket force. Though given where it will be on the outside of the fleet formation looking for targets i guess you could consider it a picket in that sense too.. its certainly not going to be in the center of the fleet with a bunch of capital-ships trading shots with the heavy weights.
TAG's Discord: discord.gg/bUeAygywy9
Am i shilling my referral code like everyone else on youtube is for this game? You bet i am!
EXAGGERATED INHALE
Don't have Star Citizen yet?
Use my referral code: STAR-BLRL-6Q76 to get some extra Free stuff when you create your account. Then to trigger the bonus all you have to do after that is buy a starter pack, or spend atleast 40$ or higher. At which point You get 5,000 extra starting credits, and Depending on what time of year you use my code You may even get a 2nd free ship when you sign up!
You can find out if they are running any signup bonus events on their main page.
You get all that, and i get 1 more point in my referral rewards stamp collection, its a win win!
lve almost got that Gladius unlocked, i just need 5 more 'suckers' err i mean "referrals". (the joke here is that friends don't trick friends into playing this buggy pre-alpha)
But Kidding aside, if you are going to get the game anyway you dont have to use my code though id appreciate it of you did, but you should atleast use someones code when you signup because it does give you extra free stuff.
Whatever you do, just dont use one of the big youtubers codes. They have all LONG sense had all the referral rewards unlocked and your signup bonus would be wasted on them. help out a little bro like me
PS here is the spectrum article: robertsspaceindustries.com/sp... - เกม
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 65 วันนี้!! คู่เอก "จ้าวเสือใหญ่ vs ผึ้งหลวง"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TDpOh5eEJKw/mqdefault.jpg)
A corvette/destroyer in WW2 would be bristling with AA turrets, carrying mines, torpedo's, main cannons and acting as early-warning vessels with their sonar and radar systems, on top of being able to deploy smoke screens to cover the retreat of their fleet, they were multi-role in order to face a number of combat roles- yet in 2953 the corvettes/destroyers are one trick ponies'.
How is it that a thousand years later ships have fallen soo poorly that it now takes seven separate niche ships to do the equivalent role of a singular WW2 Destroyer...
im just gonna go ahead in pin this lol
This is what most of us have said for ages. combat ships that cant do combat or survive for longer than 2 seconds are totally stupid...
Gimping the shit of things arbitrarily is not how you make a good game. I would know.
@@TheAngriestGamer. I agree with you, but CR's dream is the fleet battle, so you must rely on the other ships in the fleet to make up for what you lack. Which IMO is stupid, since the Perseus is supposed to be a front line patrol vessel like the Polaris, only smaller. The lore even states this as it was the main ship that patrolled the Perry Line, that was a military designation for a group of eight planetary systems that marked the borderlands between Xi'an and Human-controlled space. It will end up being a pirate ship, if it is not fixed. It really needs a couple more AA turrets and more quantum fuel capacity for its intended roll. I am ok with the ballistic cannons, since they will have many customizable ammo types that can be changed during a conflict and aboard ship.
That can be his dream all he wants but the end of the day, if this game is to thrive, you can’t leave out the solo players. Solos make up over 80% of the current base (with occasional partnering) and the more time goes by, the more mandatory team play becomes.
@@TheAngriestGamer. I have said this before, but CIG really shouldn't be so afraid to copy off of EVE's test a little bit more... A lot of the challenges they face have already been "solved" by EVE, and I, for one, don't find the idea of SC just being EVE 2 in the first person to be a bad thing...
To draw another parallel, this thing has less barrels than a bloody B-17!
A corvette isn't a ship killer anyway unless you have several gang up on a light warship. They're there to provide cover for the capital ships when working in a fleet role and to protect the space lanes in a long-haul patrol duty role. The first mistake they made was trying to mash these two roles together because they are in no way compatible.
A patrol corvette needs to be a jack of all trades. It needs a big gun, a EMP or other way to interdict criminals, the ability to launch and retrieve small craft, and it needs to have full coverage bloody AA guns.
A front-line picket corvette needs tons of light guns and missiles for quickly eliminating enemy fighters and bombers, its role is not to kill other ships. It also needs excellent defenses, whether that's maneuverability, armor or shields it needs to be able to survive.
This is like watching the Pentagon Wars about the Bradly IFV all over again, only its a spaceship.
So, to Summarize your points.
Neccesary:
- Relocate rear AA turret to under the nose for better field of fire. Its current location has extremely restricted firing arcs because its own engines are in the way.
- Do not require the size 7 ballistic cannons to be bespoke. This would make sense on a smaller ship, but a ship this size should allow players to swap them out for lasers and/or repeaters.
Reccommended:
- Upgrade the size 5 torpedows to size 6 torpedoes. Size 5 torpedoes would be ineffective against ships of similar, or larger size.
- Add secondary AA turrets to the main guns that the turret gunner can switch to depending on the situation. This won't be enough to fight of.f a wave of fighters, but it will add some flexibility without increasing the crew requirements.
Nice to have:
- Snub craft bay.
- Spinal mount weapon (size 8) for Pilot control.
- Mirror the docking port.
the under rear aa turret is a perfect location already for turret to mine turret dispenser. and need not be changed especailly for bladed automated system on it nor the top defensive turrets targeting closest when blades do become available.
the s5 torps should be s6 and double the payload from 10 to 20 total.
the mid section needs to be lengthened for 32scu to 64scu for its size as a large ship that is even small but sufficent for storing and housing ammo intended for 2x2s8 balastic guns. and if less ammo is desired. then one could attempt to fit sub fighters into the cargo bay. but not in the bays current lowering load platform configurations. but if they lengthened the belly, it would be cool to see the entire underbelly drop down and open up to house a couple of merlins or potentially 6 or 8 furys. ive actually submitted design suggestions on how this could be done, with mechanical elaboration as well to use the cargo floor footpads as landing gear itself. so when it drops down and splits into 2 long footpads as an open hannger belly, the landing gear, and the 2small or 6 tinny pad stations are the surface landing gear itself. but i dont think they would do it. cig isnt like larian studios whom actually try out what community suggests.
my only primary suggestion is that the lower 2s8 guns are moved to middle hull top and that the bay itself be doubled in size and length. so that the 2 middle s8 guns overlook the forward nose 2s8 guns. in proper classic destroyer fashion. because they only have a slow 32degree calibration radius, and half that if blade slaved to the piolet when blades come out.. thats only 15degrees aiming for 4s8 guns.
so with mines in rear, with pyroburst overhead. and 4s8 forward facing guns with extra cargo for more ammo. its weakness is its sides and its belly. just like real destroyers are to subnautica mariner crafts. where with its armored weights, turning and rolling will not be something easily navagated.
If it is supposed to be weak to fighters, the main guns need to be really powerful to make it worth having that weakness
Before they actually make armor a thing in the game, No, those main guns won't be as powerful as they should be. Either they make the armor system coming out with Perseus, or Perseus is a joke
Half the combat ships in this game wouldn't pass muster in an actual navy.
The fact that a big ship like this doesn't have an infirmary by default is mind blowing. Infirmary, brig, armoury are a must. Also all remote turret operators should be able to switch to them with a press of a button.
I do not think that a subcap like this should lose a fight against a single fighter, that's absurd.
The hammerhead doesnt even have an armory or prober bulkeads
When they announced this ship it made me realize something regarding the game philosophy and design. The philosophy is that player can interact with everything beyond just blowing stuff up. When you look at the fighters the idea is that you "level" up your stock fighter by adding higher grade equipment and eventually milspec. These things are basically LCSs of the navy and just as useless.
What I'm trying to say is that the Perseus like a lot of ships that only have one job are just that, targets for the player. A ship the game can throw at an escort mission to threaten some of the larger well armed civ ships, or provide the player with some AI assisted punch against heavier pirate raiders.
It's defenses are laid out so that you are forced to attack from certain direction in order to kill it if you don't have the outright alpha to kill it. You can see this philosophy repeat with other ships, if it's weapons are laid out poorly or it has inadequate weapons it's meant as a target or to fulfill a one trick pony slot.
That's terrible game design, especially when you are paying 600-675$ just to wait for a ship a decade. CIG needs to get it shit right, otherwise they risk a LOT of dissappointed players.
The main guns were said to have the ability to use deferent ammo types ie ap, he, incendiary, plasma and scatter rounds for an ability to fill different rolls!
Totally agree with you. As a Corvette class ship this thing needs to inspire similar dread to a Hammerhead, just in a slightly different way. I'd argue that it should have 4 quad size 3 turrets (think duplicates of what the Scorpius has) instead of 4 twin size 3 turrets. A twin size 3 turret wouldn't scare me off in anything other than a starter ship or maybe a Cutlass. Even in a Cutty I might be tempted to try my luck. A snub hangar is a great idea too, considering that this thing will be sized somewhere between a Carrack and an 890.
What are you smoking?, its a large gunship, its like 100m long, it sounds like you want an IWIN ship, and want it to be everything it is and the Polaris...
If you want a Polaris, go buy a Polaris, don't try get everything the Polaris is tacked onto the Perseus too....
the small snub hanger portion is ok i think. the 4s3 turrets nay. leave its sides undefended and put both turrets on to for 2x2s8 bispoke proton cannons. as those still take ammo after the bounty 2.0 update arrives with new ammo types. then people have to ballance more snubs or more cargo ammo hull. ect. im also ok with the missiles deflector top, and a mine layer in the rear.
so the only thing i think the perseus needs is a better adaptive hanger and longer nose for both 30degree forward fixed turrets on the top to look like a proper destroyer. with quad top s8's. and no that isnt like an idirus, they have a single ion s12 and many surface defensive turrets. making a large difference between the hamerhead, polaris, perseus and idirius.
but that is just my belief of what should be.
This video needs to get alot of traction cig needs to see this
I'll never understand how are they intend to balance all these rear facing/narrow fov turrets like here or the 400i etc. Like, this is a multicrew vessel in which a real human being is supposed to be sitting there twiddling their thumbs until something comes into view or be at a disadvantage with blades that they themselves already said are going to be not as effective as a human being.
They really aren't considering crew balance. They expect you to be able to just have a bunch of friends who will be happy to do nothing for who knows how long or only have a single button to press like we're seeing in some of the fighter varients when the utility is delegated to the co-pilot instead of just making a single person ship with utility instead of a turret. On the other hand some ships are going to be impossible for some players because they won't function well without having said crew. I keep hearing about AI blades and such but whenever the topic actually comes up with CiG they seem to want to avoid it and just push harder about the "player experience" and more multicrew stuff making me kind of worried whether they are going to ever include it or just keep trying to force player only crews and saying screw you to the people who want to play solo or don't have the friends to crew their ships and potentially do nothing all day. Some of these bigger ships are going to need big crews but we're all real people and have stuff to do, we aren't going to be able to have a dedicated crew for big ships and finding other crew when they will have to potentially travel vast distances just isn't realistic. Going to have to multi account and park an alt on one of the bigger ships I want to crew on or something so I can do stuff on my own time without being left behind if they do something or go somewhere when I'm not nearby.
@@Atelierwanwan Some of the capital ships are planned to have 50+ person crews. I can't see those being even remotely practical unless they manage to *massively* upgrade server population caps. It's going to be hard to scrounge up an escort fleet when half the server is already manning your ship!
I predict an eventual massive redesign of ship around npc crew/AI blades in the future, regardless of what they may be planning right now. Practicality *will* eventually win out (if they don't want the game to fail).
I own the Perseus, I've decided to pick this one plus a starter. I follow and play the game on and off since 2013.
All I want to say is as a Perseus owner and lover, I think many like me, would love your changes. CIG should really see this.
Hope they do and take it seriously. Allowing the ship to swim in a bigger pond will balance it.
Mf picked a 700$ ship for a starter
@@YaBoi-vj5tl nah I got the Persy and the C8R
The Perseus doesn't need any of these changes. People want this ship to do to much.
@@maddogs1989 Perseus won't do enough without the changes and will be use to gank on smaller and isolated ships. You want the Perseus to be able to brawl into a fleet fight or it will camp and one shot noobs
@@jonathanbriand3446 Bud the Perseus is a Combat Ship like the Hammerhead. It's It's sole entire focus. Indeed it could be used for that it will also be used as to go after larger ships as well. It's a Small ship meant to go after ships well over its weight class. Any small ship that sees one would just need to give it a wide birth. It's nit like it's gonna run down smaller ships
I like the idea of the little hangar at the stern of the ship, like the Galaxy, and for the "boarding" you can imagine a UEE Perseus having a Legionnaire in it, the idea of the "double turrets" like on the side turrets of a Javelin is also nice to me
the javelin is 6x2s4 which can be slaved together in 1 gun control point for 3 on each side by 2 gunners. and 2 monnts of 2s6guns. so the javelin is the improved destoryer by having more manpower and more tech behind each gunpoint. the perseus is suppose to be the elder destroyer so each big gun should be top head. as that should be the defined roll of a destoryer. that all guns are most dangerous when flying frontal or overhead to the ship. requiring rolling tactics to optimize aggressions in a destroyer. and that is where the hammerhead differs is the ideal concept of open engagement on all sides in all directions. as that is why they made the javalin is because the classic form with all guns on top was found to be better! in the addition that more smaller guns is better than just big forward facing guns. so the javalin is supposedly the best of the best.
but double turrets. if so it should be 2 at nose top, and 2 at mid top, all forward facing for the perseus.
I think that any ship, Constellation sized and bigger, should have the ability to hold 1 snub or Pisces. These are space ships and ocean ships usually have a smaller boat for going ashore while the main ship stays out. Think of a Coast Guard Cutter like the USCGC Thetis. It has a heli pad and has a zodiac. It has ability to dispatch a helicopter or a smaller fast boat. All large ships in SC should have similar capability
Couldn't agree more. 600i is the biggest example of this being needed even post rework. The thing is nearly 100m long with no tender craft
@@Exav2 Look at the 600i from the top rear. That big open lounge area with the window would be the perfect spot for a snub sized hangar. They could even keep it fancy with glass doors where you could see out while in the hangar. No need for that lounge and bar.
@@rtek777 for sure, or even with the reworked one they could replace that enormous armoury with one and have rhe armoury on the side corridors like it should be.
I would like to see it get a large quantum dampener, to better support its sister-ship corvettes. Being slow and tanky make it an interesting choice, especially if the QD is like a s8 and has like a 40km range, but only effects s3 or larger ships. I could see that being a thing.
yeah thats something ive thought about too. it doesn't make alot of sense a tiny little mantis can snare giant capital ships. i think they need a corvette sized QD to grab things larger than corvettes and do that kinda stuff.
I can see it as being a ship to protect the flanks of a fleet. Flying in formation with a Hammerhead, fighters, or a larger capital, can cover some of its AA weakness. It can add additional DPS to the fleet with minimal extra crew cost. It's fine for certain ships to be fleet ships. It's part of using the right tool for the job that will make commanding an org fleet highly skilled.
I think what you could do is make batteries of Size 0 guns as well as give every turret in game secondary S0 guns which have great ballistic performance for shooting down torpedoes and missiles, but don't really do much, if any damage against even an S1 shield.
You can also make them overheat real quick due to ridiculous rate of fire, so you need skill to drop out multiple missiles coming your way.
I mostly agree. About 98%. 1 thing that always drives me nuts with CIG and large borderline capital ships is the lack of a med bay…even just 1 bed…what kind of combat ship doesn’t have a med bay? And having a small hanger for 1 small shuttle style ship would make the ship so versatile. I own a Perseus but if they made these little changes. I would never consider another combat ship. Would be perfect.
I was thinking to upgrade my redeemer to the Perseus, but I think I will just keep my Redeemer
yeah i would keep the redeemer. I wish the Perseus would be better, but it doesn't look like that will happen and were at minimum 2-3 years away from them releasing the thing anyway.. assuming it doesn't get put on hold for another 5 years.
i also kinda wish the redeemers pilot controlled guns were fixed S5 or gimbaled S4s and the turrets were twin S4s.. but thats just me.
Redeemer is just a powerhouse in a smaller package than ships with the same amount of dps. It's too good...hope they don't nerf lol
Apart from the measly aa performance of the ship my biggest problem is the lack of a medbay and the placement of the belly turret, which should be closer to the front of the ship.
With the current way the turrets are placed it will be semi impossible to bring all the ships offensive weapons into play at the same time unless youre shooting a really large and sluggish target. Broadsiding takes away the pilots ability to shoot the torpedoes, nose-in gives the turrets a very small window where they can both hit the target, or at least thats how it appears to me.
And a medbay with at least the smallest sized medbed would be a minimum requirement for a ship that supposedly can go on solo patrol duty.
Its a shame because the ships concept really appeals to me, i still own it, but its flaws in the design become more apparent the longer you think about it...
I completely agree, especially the spinal mount rail gun. I do thing it needs more turrets, even if they are size 1 auto turrets controlled by an ai blade. as for the hangar Bay, it would be nice however if think they sound take a page out of x4 foundations and put a defense drone Bay.
X4 fan! yes i love that game.
ive been a X fan sense X3, i like em all.
I think it would be amazing to have remote controlled drone fighters or something. but we havent seen drone gameplay yet sadly. so no idea when or if that will come around.
I like the idea of having the gunner be able to switch between the large and the small gun. It's not realistic, but I think it's a good fit between realism and being fun.
You say that but a lot of apc and tank turrets have secondary smaller caliber guns
An Abrams has a .50 cal mounted on the top that traverses independent of the turret.
As well as a manned 240, and a gunners 240 slapped to the side of the main gun.
While operated by 3 separate people. It is not hard to say "Move the screen down here and gimmie that joy stick."
Atleast for the .50 cal.
This video is awesome! If they made these changes I would buy one. I love the idea of a spine mounted cannon or laser, its sad the Idris is the only ship with that idea implemented so far. I want to snipe with my ship from orbit like the cool kids.
STOP trying to get everything turned into your personal own little IWIN ship, get over it, its not an Polaris, its NOT an Idirs....
@sgt_major8419 Calm down bud. It's a vedya game.
If I want to drive around town in my suped up redeemer with 20 inch rims... imma do it.
Hi there i do agree with your self defense system changes, turret modularity and the torps. Would love to see the lower turret slightly move away from the hull of the ship to give better cross fire section between both turrets and have the cargo lift replaced with a armory or med bay.
I really like the turret suggestions you've got in this vid. 100% supported. The RSI Perseus doesn't have enough AA.
You’re so right dude. They focusing on nerfing. I completely agree with your changes they really need to see this
Ballistics damage through shields = large ship subsystem damage = no engine.
Will have Flack ammo? and other round types, changeable with a switch.?
Note on the crew: this thing has an intended crew of 5, the pilot, captain, engineer and two gunners for the manned guns. the small PD guns are meant to be automated. The captain might even be omitted
Since u are a dev yourself what is your thought about the speed CIG needs to release ships? Imo it takes way to long. They take forever for small to medium ships atm. Just wanna know your thought on this.
so the 3d models are actually one of the most time consuming things you can do, and the level of detail they put in is pretty impressive. they also do interiors which is another huge time sink.. Though on occasion their are several bugs that seem to take ages to addressed even though they are pretty obvious. which is strange to me.
That being said, they should start to have a data base of assets and templates by now that they can pull from or reuse where needed so the work load for custom stuff should in theory be minimal..
but from what i hear CR likes everything to be unique, which causes more dev time.. but those are problems for the 3d teams which is not my department. also again i do not work for CIG.
Having said that, The time it takes for tweaking/balancing/as well as scripting and coding in new features is NOWHERE near as long as it takes for 3d assets.
so it is utterly staggering to me how poor the current UI works, how little actual features they have. and the fact they are 10 years in without something like an armor system (which EVERYTHING uses) is absolutely insane to me.
Quality of life stuff currently in game is minimal and heavily incomplete. At this time there is no way to stack or sell all items, their is no way to leave custom bookmarks/location pins of things you find in the verse so you can fly back to it.. No long range scanning, no in-game insurance kiosks, ship boarding, air to ground weapons, teamplay for air to ground guided weapons with buddy lazing, ability to sell stolen ships, ability to spoof the ID and drive sig of a stolen ship then claim ownership.
The tractor beams, ship board, refineries, ship board maintenance on snub craft and vehicles (basically carrier support) are all things should have been done AGES ago.
same with new larger missions that pay better but require groups to do and have larger enemies in them. Ground missions and bases should be able to support NPC vehicles and defenses by now..
we should of had Gunner AI blades by now, as well as working stealth, countermeasures and missiles.
The list goes on.
i dont know how many people they have on staff, and who does what. but the fact they are building squadron 42 instead of the PU is very strange to me, and the fact that they aren't able to reuse assets and work done on 1 with the other is also very strange to me. their could be legitimate reasons technical reasons, it could be legal issues.. I dont know im not on the inside.
But depending on how you build a game from the outset. you typically are able to reuse assets and code especially if you start with a MP game and then go SP.. you cant take a SP game and then go MP though engines dont like that and scripting is different. but specifics on that are question for an engine engineer, they would know more on that then i would.
oh i just remembered another thing that could slow down progress. i have NO Idea what their studio side tool kids look like or what they are using to make all their changes.. if their in house tools are terrible that could slow stuff down too. so could a revolving door type workplace.
the whole start stop development is insane to me, so is the idea that they chase down ideas that dont pan out and waste all that development time.
in contrast the small team i lead for example dont move unless we know exactly what were doing/building. what it will look like. what it has to have. then we go build it. then we spend some time trying to break it and ensuring it works as intended. once it passes all the go's and checks, we start working on the next thing. its a waste of everyone time and money to do anything else. Backers, publishers and higher ups get really pissed off when you waste time like CIG does.
@@TheAngriestGamer. wow thank you for the big insight. i feared that you would say something like that. i did some 3d stuff for a little bit and im aware that it takes time. i really really really hope CIG get their shit together and start the gear soon. bcus at one point even the hardcore white knight backes will be pissed. Especially after they gonna see Starfield. im super keen to see it and im pretty sure the modding community will go insane with the game.
Soooo, just saying good facts however its missing some important ones. One being armor is going to make it so smaller guns (ones found on fighters mainly) are going to do negligible damage if any noticeable. Also, the Perseus is a ship that isn't supposed to go in alone. Its a great ship for its class, 2 custom turrets which weren't mentioned by him (custom guns on the turrets), as well as it will be a pain to kill.
Him keep mentioning AA, well its not a AA ship. There's your hammerhead or fighter compliment. Its a ship meant for FLEET maneuvers. Not sole use. Pair it with something else, patrol with something else, its not a capital, its a brawler. Not really for defense, its meant to make it so things don't target the rest of the fleet.
I think what needs to be added is a tier 3 medical bed. More cargo like 76 scu or more. The lift to be able to carry a spartan, and the turret be size 4 instead of size 3. Also size 7 would be awesome, but i take size 6. The turret placement can stay the same.
For the guns, i will make it a special railgun cannon, making it hit harder, plus dual feed for the main turrets. Their going to be different ammo like ap, flak, regular, etc.
the same as in the video or the same as default? cuz default AA turret layout is irredeemably/unsalvageably bad..
@TheAngriestGamer should be quad size 3 AA with 1 more at the front between the torpedo chub. If possible it should also hold size 1 or 2 VLS on those flaps to make sense having them.
Being able to lock in a Legionnaire would be a really cool feature for such a ship, which will probably patrol and interdict suspect ships.I also imagine a simple medical bed, even a measly tier 3, is a must, for a ship going into combat.
yep thats a good idea too
the most useful turret configuration i seen so far is the carrack, not sure why everything else sticks turrets in the valleys if ship structure and stops u from using them. like the top left/right wing turrets on the retalliator which are useless
ud like the hammerhead then. because the turrets on the carrack are literally miniaturized from the hammerhead. meanwhile the carrack has 15degree of rear overlay from wings. the hammerhead not on 4 turreted mounts. but there are other videos of how the 600i fixed 3xs5 and top and lower 2x2s3 are highly outweighing the 2x2s3 and its rear and lower 2x2s2 on the carrack. ntm the 600i having 16s3 arresters. 2s3 cannons are 1250m range on mounts. meanwhile 3s5 fixed is 2850m range, and comparatively double the maneuverability then the carrak. so... structure and turret position and type is pending on preferences. but usually piolet controlled guns is always better, as this is where the carrack and hammerhead fall short. the 600i and perseus not. the only ships that are acceptions to non-piolet controled guns. javalin and polaris. javalin because you have 6x2s3's and 2x2s5's all overhead as each side can be bladed together only requiring 4 total gunners for 8turrets total. also the polaris because well, 40s10 torpedos. so the perseus main point of intrests is 2x2s8 bladed to piolet. but neither ship nor blades are released as of yet.
I'm pretty sure that there are 4 S7 turrets, aka 2 Twin S7 manned turrets. One on the top of the nose and another one on the rear belly of the ship as well as 20 size 5 missiles. I do agree that the Size 3 remote might be lacking a lil bit... but those size 7 will hit like a dumptruck especially when we know that sizing will actually be exponential in the future. From how size 2 (M) and size 3 (L) will have such a huge gap in hp. They did say that the same will apply to weapons AND when a weapon (in that case the S7) are specifically made for a ship/vehicle and unique to it, it will have a much larger output. ex: Nova tank, Tumbril Storm, Blade and Glaive.
Good overall idea. The only hint I would change is the exact location of the front underside AA turret; the turret angles on the big underside turret are sketchy enough, and I want to be sure both of the big turrets can fire forward at the same enemy simultaneously.
That underside AA turret might get in the way where it is now
it wont. you cant see it from the angle but its on a part of the ship thats lower than where the big gun is placed, so inorder for it to hit that AA gun it would have to shoot through a section of hull to hit the small AA, which needless to say, would cause other more serious issues than shooting said small aa.
It really seems like most of the large ships in Star citizen, are headed towards lessons in air defense similar to early WW2 esp with the added survivability shields add and the general willingness to die ppl have in gaming. Im betting most ships will be very weak against even small numbers of fighters
shield stop eletric, radiations, and ionization weapons. nay toward ballistics nor rail gun projectiles. also the bandu temporalkensis projectiles are worse then rail guns. but ballistics have 1 advantage. in the near futures with bounty 2.0 should be versatile ammo types. flachet, radioactive, piercing, and my favorite incendiary. when you have 2x2s8 ballistic cannons, your shield point of concerns is, what shields. this is why the perseus is literally the heaviest armored ship in game and delayed now till dec2024 or after? coming out after the polaris which was due dec 2023 but due to 3.20 and legalities now delayed till may 2024? yeah.. because the heaviest armored ship in the game with 2x2s8 piolet controlled ballistic cannons loading incendiary ammo... that is the big bad wolf cap killer.
@@nemesisfaust Perseus has 2 s3 turrets for AA/point defense, the main guns will probably be wholly ineffective against smaller craft due to the turret training speed and probably projectile speed as well, Aries pilots are already complaining about taking on smaller craft with a relatively maneuverable s7, the CIG response to which was along the lines of bigger guns are meant to hit bigger ships and a giant cannon wont just snipe light fighters out of the sky. Can it be done? sure, will it happen regularly enough to save the ship when its being swarmed by fighters? doubt it. With the s3 turrets even ships that have more of them get easily swarmed by half decent pilots, Reclaimer has 6 s3 and a s5 and gets swarmed by 4-5 fighters easily. Add in components going down from hits and its not hard to see how vulnerable larger ships are going to be unless CIG makes some big changes, I doubt armor will be the end all beat all here.
@@cz2681 the gatling on the inferno handles small targets just fine as a S7, and even better if S8 to compensate the range nerf after the ares nerfs. the ion is the people were complaining about both ways asking faster ect. then it was devs responces tired of people complaining, and saying hey look this is suppose to be a heavy figher. so if it dominates ok, but its not the biggest baddest ship in the sky, just the one of current. so theres already a confirmed rework with aim fixes ontop of going back to S8 for that.
also the 4s8's are mounted on a very big and heavy ship. not a medium size heavy fighter taking up the roll like an A-10 warhog. so the perseus will have notable aiming speeds given its size. with its limited 30degree rotations. where again its not a turreted gun, as the turrets are not made for going all around. so the gyros having less range of motions should be 3x faster in its gimble controls making 4s8's have the speed of 4s4's. so it will handle very well for approaching targets. better than anything else.
you are correct about the projectial flight times. however when you look at the blast for current S5 and S6's reported by erkul. flighthanger, ect... the difference of cannons you are use to with S1 and S3's is not the same as volicity improvements on S4-S6 where only S5s like the 600i explorer have 2850m range and 1895 velocity. S8 bispoke 30degree destoryer cannons should be 4800m and 3200m/s that is still really good compairatively. if you are talking projectial flight time. as attrition3 repeaters are what 1550m and 2400fps. so its faster than attritions.
however what you didnt say is the rpm. aka round per min. granted huston class destoryers with 3x3 overhang 340mm cannons landing about 12.5mile in land. rpm is near 1.2 rounds per sec. so 1 one thousand, 2 1 thousand, 3 1 thousand, 4 one thousand, 5 one thousand. 6 rounds per barrel for 4 barrels is 24 rounds in 5sec comparatively. doing 960 alpha damage per round? i think thats pretty freaking good.
but these are just speculations... shit dont matter till it releases. and even then, things are subject to change. bla bla.
So I hadn't been paying too much attention to the Perseus since it was announced, but this is a really interesting perspective that's informed me a bit more on a ship in development. I actually think the real problem here is something you touched on towards the end, and that is that I don't think CIG actually *have* a clear idea of this ship's role.
See, when I first heard of the Perseus and it's heavy armor, big guns and lack of point defense, my initial thought was "Oh, so this is basically Star Citizen's Ion Cannon Frigate." Now, if you're not familiar with the Homeworld space RTS games, ion frigates are basically giant spinal mount energy beams with some engines and armor attached and a crew to point them at stuff, made to be a cost-effective way to fight against other ships their size or larger when used as part of a line of battle (or, because this is space, more often a wall of battle). For a role like this, the Perseus is mostly good enough as it is, only needing effective torpedo defense and at least in theory that could be done via a sufficient reserve of *effective* countermeasures as opposed to a point defense turret net.
The thing is, a pocket battleship role like that is the complete opposite of a patrol ship. A patrol vessel operates on its own and will mostly engage things around its size in one on one battles, and for that role your redesign makes perfect sense... But it's also a role the Hammerhead already fills well, although redundant ships for the same role is not exactly something CIG is adverse to making. Either way, CIG needs to actually decide on what this ship is supposed to do and either redesign or market it appropriately. Oh, and if they're gonna stick a point-defense turret on this thing, move it somewhere it can actually defend the ship. 100% the right call on that one.
Edit: Also agree that the bespoke turrets are stupid, give us gun customization!
Where did you download that 3D model?
i think i grabbed it from yeggi or thengiverse so i could make a quick and easy video, its been sitting on my PC for awhile though so im not 100%.
But i did all the other edits and stuff myself, and they didn't take very long sense i know how to use blender and 3d model.
i was going to do a better job with the hanger but decided against it sense it was only suppose to be a quick video, and i didnt feel like doing it cuz im lazy & get my fill of 3d modeling at my 9 to 5 lol
I like the idea of secondary small arms mounted to the main cannons (a la Javelin).
Great points. The main underlying issue is the bizarre nerfing of large guns. Case in point are the crusader starfighter ships. It takes me 5 times longer to kill a medium fighter in arena than with any other fighter, small, medium or large. Before the nerf, when they had the correct damage output, it was twice as fast.
@nuclearsimian3281 that's true, but what I meant was the nerfing was not ok. You can't sell an obviously overpowered ship, then nerf it with no refunds. But there was an obvious easy fix. A rapid fire low power mode where the thrusters have full power, and a full gun power, reduced thruster mode. Like the master mode switches we have now.
They didn’t nerf large guns, they balanced the ion temporarily. Turrets move slowly so can’t track faster ships, which you can see if you sit in the javelin turrets at Invictus which is why they have smaller secondary turrets on top.
The Ares is supposed to be weak against fighters and string against larger ships, so of course you’ll struggle in a 1v1.
As well, they already confirmed ranges would be much higher and scale with gun size and physicalised damage will make a s7 gun have a big difference against larger targets.
@Ed_Patrick they nerfed the ions large gun and the infernos large gun, the largest guns in the game.
They created a ship that could one shot small ships (obviously given the dmgun size) sold hundreds then panicked and nerfed it. Permenantly. There is no way the ion will ever get the full size 7 power back. None. Even against the carrack its overpowered. They should just downsize to a size 6 a call it a day. That's about where its at anyway.
@@thebigjr9995 they balanced it because it was a fighter platform that was supposed to be weaker against fighters and was one or two shotting most small-medium ships, including in a turn dogfight. That has no relevance to the strength of turret on a big ship that moves too slowly to be a threat to a fighter. As you would see in a javelin turret.
The Ion will get some kind of charge mechanic that will be dialled in so it hits hard but isn’t viable in a dogfight. Which is easy enough, just have a very long charge up time if needed and with physicalised damage it will be effective. The inferno was never OP against fighters like the ion was.
You and the person who made this video just don’t want to represent things accurately or even try understand the difference or that certain ships have specific roles and weaknesses by design. It isn’t real life, it is a game where there is interplay between the shops to cover their weaknesses. The Perseus isn’t a solo power house, it’s a fleet ship meant to work with other capitals, fights and the hammerhead.
My suggestion about switching out the weapons would be a retrofit, where you would have to switch out the entire turret to get in optional energy cannons. As for defensive guns, I agree that they should have four, but I would put them on the side, right by where the docking collar is for coverage. This way the right and left ones won't possibly get confused and can go for a threat on the opposing sides. Also, as much as a snub bay would be nice, I don't think it needs one.
this is why i said the cargo hanger should be extended, and both turrets should be on top side with 2s8 at nose top, and 2s8 in middle top with both bladeable to piolet. going from 32scu to 64/72scu. is to house more ammo. as she is an older ship, she should use balastic cannons, or at the least rail guns which still take ammo as that is ship idea/concept balance and appropriately correct. whereas 2952 was the inferno to ion variant? so historically 2877 perseus was prior to common human uses of energy and ion weapons. so if they did a retro fit of ion cannons. 1 would assume the blade computer controls would make them non-piolet controlled, and 2x2 S7ion cannons vs 2x2S8 balastic cannon/rail guns on the old capacitors. so should there be a retrofitted ion option bespoke to the ship. most certainly. is it worth it for the loss of piolet controlled guns, i dont think so. but i think the blades should come defaulted on the ship for the 2x2S8 ballistic cannons. regardless if they move the mounts to 2 s8 top nose, and 2s8 mid top.
also after the 3.20 updates hull+armor hp updates, and the bounty2.0 ammo type updates, and pyro armor reballancing... 2x2s8 top forward facing ballistic cannons firing in full battery with incendiary rounds projecting threw shields at 90% rate. that is a cap class killer.
All really really great points.
I do like your changes, I would actually be ok with a couple set of x2 size 2 remote turrets Only issue I see is it turns the ship from a 2+1 ship to a 2+X ship crew wise.
As far as the hanger, ya know I have always said I enjoy when Manufactures have a level of cohesion. I really would like to see RSI release their own line of snub/shuttles, with Medical, storage, scouting in mind. Something that the Conni can swap out the Merlin for, can be used on ships like the Galaxy as an alternative to the Pisces.
yeah having a RSI boarding snub would be cool. I think were actually going to get a Medical ursa soon so thats amazing. also someone pitched the idea today that the S8 Spinal mount should be a heavy Distortion cannon and i got wide eyed and said "YES!", so many uses for that.
as for the extra remote turrets, the reason i placed them ontop of the big guns is so you wouldn't have a need for extra crew, it would operate like the javelins S7 guns which have Twins S4s on the roof. the S7 gunner can toggle between the turrets depending on what threats are out there.
so if their are big targets to kill, they can use the S7s, if their arent and they get jumped by small ships or have to fight off torps, they can toggle to the Twins S3s to try and fend the attackers off long enough for help to get there
We can change the HH guns so we should be able to change out the Perseus guns as well. Also all of your points are spot on! I hope they rework this ship so that it will be good. As it is I think it will be complete trash. Added rail gun and snub hangar would make the ship actually cool.
I hope this video will be seen by a growing number of backers and ideally some ship team devs. There should at least be ample options to customize the ship hull, including placing some extra weapon hardpoints.
@@nuclearsimian3281 My point is about customization. So, that should have made it obvious what for. That said, this ship is not a corvette, to begin with, and, if one sticks to its lore, there is certainly no connection at all to clearing "things like Xenothreat". Apart from that, right now it does not punch anything above anywhere: In its current design, following contemporary naval doctrine, it is but a target, a relic from the era of gunship aficionados in the days of missiles, drones and CIG's end-all BEAM tech gameplay. ^^
it fills a specific role with in a small part of a larger fleet to be effective it doesnt rely on its AAA due to other ships that are more capable of covering its blind spots and stop incoming barrages or fighter wings
yes because in a fleet battle every other ship around has nothing more important to do, and is going to go out of their way to protect 1 tiny unimportant escort craft.
do you realize how insane you sound right now?
how do people say stupid shit like this?
I hope its a misunderstanding so i will try to clean it up. their is a massive DIFFERENCE between "defending yourself" and "killing everything that comes near you".
No-one is advocating for a do everything ship. We only want BASIC defense. Every serious navy ship today from carriers down to tiny ass corvettes, can defend itself from basic attacks from subs, air, other ships and missiles so long as it is a small isolated attack. Obviously massed attacks don't count and saturation thresholds exist, but thats not the point.
You are actually sitting here advocating for a ship that is functionally useless and cant fullfill its job because you want it to be 100% helpless. adding a couple point defense guns for anti-missile defense does not make this ship overpowered, it makes it have the BARE MINIMUM to be functional and survive long enough to find something and maybe shoot at it.
without basic defenses like this, the ship will instantly die to the 1st torpedo that is fired at it.. and if you actually think other ships are going to drop what they are doing to shoot at munitions headed for someone elses ship and not shoot at the ones headed for them. you have mental problems.
I cant wait for this useless ship to get added to the game so i can consistently and with MINIMAL effort rat fuck you guys into a re-spawn screen using a single bomber that cant be detected or stopped, firing a single torpedo that 1 shots you and you cant shoot it down because YOU DIDN'T WANT PDS GUNS. Ohh its gonna be funny.
I am honestly planning to use it more like an AC130 gunship destroying armor and gunships and providing close air support. Depending on how much range the remote AA have i can use it to spray down light vehicles and armor and the cannons as bombardment.
The problemn is CIG dont actually look at the reasons for things in real life. Anything larger than a patrol boat now days has a helicopter (snub) pad. This is for many reasons as I am sure you are aware. They gave the galaxy a snub bay but not the Perseus. It is way easier to send a shuttle over to a station/ship rather than dock. This would synergise with the Legionaire really well.....
Appreciate the work put into this video. Love the theme of the Perseus so I'm holding a ccu... BUT, If it comes out as advertised I'll probably melt it for the reasons you laid out here. If ships don't have some reasonable degree of self sufficiency a 3-5 multicrew frigate will continue to lose to 2-3 fighters. It's hard enough to get multicrew going in this game sometimes yet the defense is that we need multi multi crew vessels to make their design work 😂
The Perseus needs 2 more aa guns one on each side
Like a F8C, soon will be? ;-)
I like the extra hanger idea.
I had an idea for a ship with an upper hanger (890J sized) cargo bay and lower cargo/hanger bay (890J sized), with an elevator that can move a ship (Pieces sized) and/or cargo between the two bays?
Love it. Make sure CIG sees this. Addresses many of the problems.
thought: add/move the AA turrets - no question, VERY needed. BUT... add significant scan/detection/arresting capabilities. So, where you were considering a spinal mount, consider a strong tractorbeam or array of them for lockdown. IMHO, this is NOT a fleet ship, if patrol is its primary function. It should not be operating far from support, but I do not imagine it would be operating in a group if meant for customs/picket/blockade duties? I guess I'm thinking more Coast Guard than Navy? Love the idea of a snub, would suggest something intended for scanning as a package if so.
Its really weird as to what this ship is.. CIG doesnt know what it is, we dont know what it is, the ship itself doesnt know what its suppose to be or have the tool kit/stats and config needed to do any of its stated jobs. It feels like they just added it as filler without really thinking it through.
CIG Claims it is THE most armored corvette in the game (now they call it a frigate but its still only 100m long, again CIG doesnt know what they are talking about). And that it can shrug off shots from any fighter in the game aside from maybe the vanguards and obviously the Ares fighters.. Then they say its a fleet ship and they want it to work with other ships and brawl with corvettes and hunt them down.. But how is it going to do that when its too slow to catch other corvettes cuz its an armored whale?
Then they say when its not serving the UEE on frontline duties, its taking part in Recon, and anti piracy pickets and patrols.. But again how is it going to do that without any snub craft to do a stop and frisk, or ability to chase down faster pirates?
this thing looks cool, but its concept is contradictory and makes ZERO sense. it needs a mild redesign to better figure out what its role and function is and then to fill that role.
Oh btw someone suggested maybe instead of a hanger, this thing might get a Heavy interdicter module and prevent capital ships from warping. and i thought this would be a very cool idea. i dont like the idea that a Mantis can pin down a Bengal or anything larger than a corvette. that seems crazy to me.
I agree about to your design but... I think, I want more weapons for "Pilot Weapons". It's boring if the pilot just control ship movement. And add side turret for more defense. I hope CIG will re-design Perseus...
We can hope! They *are* in the middle of redesigning the Polaris, after all!
Isn’t it supposed to have a second big cannon turret making 4 size 7 canons? I only see the 1 turret
its pretty far back on the belly side, easy to miss if youre not looking carefully, but it is there
@@Gnarfendorf oooo ok I see it
In lore this ship had no shields and was a brutally armored vehicle. A simple fighter isn't supposed to make this thing flinch. However remote turrets should be size 4 and torps size 6 or 7 imo.
defense turrets to defend vs torpedo i think is good. means the fighters have a purpose because they are not going to scratch this things armor. but they could destroy the anti torpedo guns for a strike package.
adding 2 snub fighters to this would be cool, i have the upgrade to get one, the turrets should be quad as well
I have been complaining about larger military and explorer ships not having a medbed for a while now. Makes zero sense.
I like that you gave an example of a better build and I hope they see this and implement it in the build
This makes so much sense I hope they see this but I doubt they will.
You made some good points and I really liked the redesign to having 4-point defense guns, for a corvette in this role. That being said (as you like to say), I do not own or play star citizen and this is the first time I'm hearing about it, I just think you made some great arguments, lol.
the Percy is a monitor class ship, its meant to hit ships at range and not get to close to the action, never send it into battle alone it will work better in a battlegroup or fleet
It is worth noting that bespoke weapons are supposed to overperform to compensate, so its likely the 4 s7's should perform closer to s8's or possibly even be comparable to a single S9 in overall punch. It feels more likes its supposed to be an Ion of capital ships, able to punch up at things like Jav's while still able to do things like blow up illegal cargo runners in peacetime.
God i hope so.. cuz the worst thing they can do is make this thing feel like 4 ion/inferos glued togather. those things have bespoke weapons too and they disgustingly underpreform for what they are intended to fight. the ion especially sense it doesn't have the 70% shield bypass and only has 2/3 the damage of the inferno. I wish they went back to 60 RPM and 6k alpha with the ion so it felt like a cannon and actually had the punch it needs to do its job.
Still bespoke weapons not being able to be changed is pretty lame. i like customizing things. even the Idris can customize its spinal mount.
so if they made 2 versions an energy weapon version and a projectile one, and let each swap weapons with in their own category that would be fine.
I like where you put the AA turrets but they need to be pds auto turrets and rotate independently of the main turret. The gunner will have his hands full with component repairs and/or fires other duties.
i agree. it would be nice to have them slaved to AI or independently fired. even if you couldnt do that it would still be nice to have that option for the gunners to have extra turrets to toggle to if theirs nothing big to shoot at thus doubling the AA defense.
100% agree. Awesome that you have dev experience so they can't pull the "BuT yoU aRenT a dEv" cop out. As someone who was in the military and loves Military aircraft (and worked on them) and ships, CIG has a very poor understanding of military ship battle strategies and roles of aircraft. The retaliator being modular, for instance, makes 0 sense. You can't take an F/A-18 and just turn it into an EA-18 Growler. They are two totally different jets on the same frame with different mission roles and capabilities.
I hope the CIG ship team takes heed to your logical suggestions. I feel like they limit the ships too much with blind sides everywhere. It just make these larger ships a bigger target with no defense to show off and an expensive single-use ship.
3.20 is on test 1 and 2 now. and next week going to 3-5 and by pirate week should be in game. where supposedly one of the things in 3.20 is burst and flachets ranges doubling. so the pyroburst 400m should be 800m in some weeks. for some very close cqc combats. but optimally for missile defenses as most all missile launches fly in overhead, with a bow down to top of targets. if all you can see of a target is a belly, most missiles simply miss. they way the target navigations are. unless using proximity missiles. so as piolet or copiolet one should be aware of targets facing and rotation positions when firing heat or cross phase missiles. as that was part of 3.19 with advanced trajectory updates and missile explosion radius expansions. and the perseus is supposedly the heaviest armored ship in the game. so its only natural they hold it till after hull hp balance of 3.20, after armor and ammo type updates of bounty 2.0 ect ect ect. where i believe only after those updates, will ship balancing actually fall in line for what is balanced. then you will start to see ships acting and functioning more so as they should by intended concepts.
Do not forget, WW2 Torps could be dodged. I do not expect torps to have crazy maneuverability. Cross Fire from multiple torps will be what is required for a Torp to hit I think. That ship can turn away from a torp and mow it down with the back turret while being maneuverable enough turn and obliterate any Coni size ship with those big guns. Lots of armor, maneuverable, and good point defense with Great Firepower from those big turrets.
I do not see this ship being alone either, Probably a few Heavy Fighters with their own strengths following it. Maybe a few haulers with that ship bringing the Big Guns.
This comment is a response to both of your perseus videos.
Swap the location of the bottom turret and the cargo bay. Moving that bottom turret forward gives it better visibility in all directions as in front the hull slopes up and away meaning it can actually converge with the top turret, while towards the back the engines are farther away meaning the the angle that the turret can aim at to get around them would be better as well. By moving the cargo bay to the back you also open up the ability to swap the elevator for a ramp and make it easier to park snub craft inside. It would take some redesigning, but so far as I know the ship is currently not in development so it would hardly be any work at all compared to redesigning it when it's finished and players realize how awful the current layout is.
I also like the idea of making the turrets more akin to the Javelin turrets with additional smaller guns to defend against torpedoes, it keeps the crew size small but fixes the ship's massive weakness. As far as the guns being bespoke, I actually don't mind this. It fits the role of the ship much better as it is intended to fight larger military ships which presumably have thick/heavy armour. The guns firing balistic armour penetrating rounds is exactly what I would like to see, though, being able to swap out the ammo type would also be cool and practical, for instance loading proximity explosive C-788 type ammo would make it far more effective against smaller craft.
I don't think this ship will get a large spine mounted weapon, that encroaches on the territory of the Idris too much and the ship would have too much firepower. Piloting a ship like this certainty is not boring, anyone who has flown a fully crewed Hammerhead will tell you how hard it is to keep position for your gunners to stay on target. That being said I do think that upping the size of the missiles/torpedoes to no more than size 6 makes sense, it doesn't encroach on the Polaris and it gives another threat worth thinking about when facing against this ship while not making it too overpowered.
Let's keep in mind that this ship is primarily meant to be a self-sufficient patrol craft, creating such a glaring weakness to torpedoes does not "balance the ship" it makes it useless. The smaller point defence guns solve this issue and don't directly increase the power of this ship against other large ships since ideally you would play to your range advantage far beyond the capabilities of those small guns anyway.
i still like the idea of a Spinal mount to help it do its job and Fight boredom, especially one that is so much smaller than that of the idris. the S8 spinal would only really be a threat to FACs/Connie sized ships, and would probably beable to idk 3-5 shot them. it would take awhile to wack down a corvette with a single barrel S8.
everything else is pretty much inline with what i think and i cant wait to get AI blades and crew because getting people together to do turret or ship multi crew is nearly impossible cuz of how boring it is.
@@TheAngriestGamer. Good god. I tried to make a spectrum thread and it's just like you said. Everyone on there is quite retarded and seemingly unable to read more than one sentence before responding. Its in the RSI forum and titled "Perseus Glaring Issues" if you'd like to add your input there.
i agree with the more guns, i respectfully disagree with the shuttle aspect, its a dedicated warship. it should have an infirmary though, i think all sup caps, should at least have an infirmary. I've always said they should make these things powerful just have proper counters.
I really want the Perseus upscaled to a 140m 5 turret (3 top 2 bottom) battleship style craft. That way it's still a corvette but it's competitive against the other 2 (Polaris and HammerHead) but still a threat to both larger and slightly smaller craft.
Having it weak to AA I think is fine since pairing it with a Redeemer or HH will fix that. Totally fine with it being ballistic only too. locked type weapons are more powerful than the ones that can be swapped and gunning isn't boring as is stated in the vid.
Also, battleships are cool.
I personally have a huge dislike for battleships in space. Because it simply wouldn't be effective in a newtonian physics based world.
@@Jakob3xD none of star citizen combat is based around modern accuracy, its based around "WW2 in space" -CR.
A major centrepiece of WW2 was its battleships. We fight in knife range now and always will. In reality you won't see anything besides a blip on a screen in space combat
We have 6 degrees of freedom and we are still able to uncouple and turn ships pretty fast. I know they are trying hard but pointing yourself to the enmey with the side that has the most firepower and least surface area is still viabal. That is the reason the arrow will always be the undefeated meta if they dont find any other way to nerf it.
Agree with 99.9 % of what you're saying one thing I would take in consideration though cuz I don't know when but they reclassified this as I forget which I'm assuming is one step below a Corvette will that affect anything probably not but I think it at least justifies the torpedo size a little bit
they reclassified it to frigate which is bigger than a corvette.. it absolutely is not a frigate, cig doesn't know what they are talking about/doing 95% of the time.
This thing is a corvette, but it is on the smaller side due to its minimalist crew design.
To answer your other question,
Things under corvettes are known as Fast attack craft/sub-corvettes. stuff in this category are small multi crew patrol craft like patrol Gun/Missile/Torpedo boats. In SC this would be things like the Redeemer/Drake Corsair, Conny Andromeda, and Retaliator respectively.
Sense the the corsair & redeemer is literally a PG boat, the conny is literally a Hybrid Patrol Missile and gun boat, and the Retaliator is a space Patrol torpedo boat.
@@TheAngriestGamer. Yeah I probably should have looked that up before I said that. Now that I've looked at some naval classification for ships most of CIGs stuff makes no sense for there actual role
110% agree with your points.
A corvette should be able to support the fleet, not being a burden because it cant protect itself from smaller threats or torp.
I assume this ship better be good as flanker.
1) Make the turret more useful, more angle of fire/better position on the ship. Given the small size it have, its purpose is suited for AA (counter any torpedoes, smaller size enemy ship)
2) Main gun battery can be customizable either laser/ballistic, the gun appearance also change. Swapping the whole battery might be too big for a module and too expensive
3) Main gun change to another larger AA turrets (pilot), gives more loadout option
4) The box idea is good, a coupler limit the option because the box can be use for anything the player want, like using ballista, tank, 2 mirai maybe, c8x as escape option when thing goes wrong. This gives more playability and strategy value making it harder for enemy to approach from behind.
5) High powered laser beam with a 3-5sec duration (with a proper cooldown for the next shot) for the "special version perseus" (this could be another ship variant because how much overhaul it needs to be done to install and properly use the laser for more shot)
But this version suffers from lack of other utility function (less ammo room) inorder to equipped with another high end engine just for the laser beam, if bad engine were used whole ship will suffers from power loss or overload (can be tweaked from the panel how much energy pass to the weapon, but that affects the laser alpha.
Bigger laser = more energy needed = bigger engine needed = more heat it produced = more cooling it needed = less interior/cargo room. Should only have the essential, like how medium ship have, enough beds, gun rack plus a table for dinner (maybe put) medic bed. Its enough for the purpose to continue longer combat because in frontlines luxury is useless.
Ugh your so right and it makes me so sad. I want this ship to be good so much for me and my 3 buddies.
I would like to see size 7 or size 6 torpedo's would be nice. Size 5 torpedo's hit pretty hard though so. Either way I want my Perseus. It looks so good
its now labeled as a Frigate on the website as for the size 100m I laughed at that when it came out no why it doesn't grow in size by the time it comes out
I feel like it should have either a 3 gun main gun turret top and bottom or have 2 main gun turrets with 2 guns top and bottom
Add the rail gun, but remove the torpedoes. You're bang on about the point defence and every large ship needs to be able to carry a Pisces.
Also, it will be interesting to see how flak ammo works against torpedoes in particular, but also fighters. Will we be able to carry and switch out ammo?
I'd also like to see small missile turrets. Again, without the torpedoes, these would be a nice compliment to the size 3 turrets.
My personal guess would be that flak ammo would be useless, the s7 turrets will never get the turret rotation speed to be effective aa guns, because then the smaller fighter pilots will bawl their eyes out that something larger might be able to touch them inappropriately...
I think the biggest point you raised was the AA turret issue. And the main problem with your fix for that is that the remote turrets are AI bladed by default, allowing for a crew of 3 (1 pilot and 2 gunners). If the remote turret count was increased, the AI blades might make that a lot more effective than current. That being said, the back/bottom turret placement is super weird.
the gunners in the big turrets choose if they want to operate the big gun, or the remote turret ontop of it. the turrets there are linked and must be operated manually. The one on the nose and behind the bridge are still remote turrets that can be ai bladed. also idk if we will see AI blades anytime or ever at this point. they have talked about it for ages and have not worked on it in forever.
@@TheAngriestGamer. Unless they can figure out how to *massively* increase server population caps, they will eventually *have* to enable npc crew/AI blades. Many of the larger capital ships are too crew intensive to actually work as it is now.
Okay so this is almost as long as the video and for that I apologize.
Totally agree with most of the things listed here. It seems like CIG is making the size 7 gun the stand in for the 5/38 the USN relied on in WWII as the heaviest dual purpose gun. CIG originally pitched these guns as having access to different types of ammunition and I have always believed that one of those would be a flack ammo that the 5/38 could use. However, CIG hasn't been clear on that at all. Its one of the things that need the most clarification. If the shells can do more than we think of AP/and something else then yes it makes sense to have them be bespoke, but it also makes sense to allow captains the opportunity to remove those guns for whatever suits them most. Like maybe a captain doesn't want the versatility or the hassle of finding the specialist ammo that only this ship can use and wants to go with lasers instead even if they do give up damage or whatever. So yes to the versatility of the guns.
The AA layout is atrocious, but that doesn't mean we should take bad ideas from the Javelin and apply it to this ship. Turrets on top of turrets were tried once on a ship. The Americans thought that more guns equaled better, so pretty much on brand, any ways the turret on top had trouble tracking while the bottom turret was in use and honestly figuring out where a target is and switching back n forth between turrets is well quite frankly stupid especially on a ship with near 360 degree motion like the Perseus. I'd much rather see two hammerhead style turrets that are quad size threes be brought out to where the wings are and just push out far enough to avoid the winglets. Keep them remote so that they can be smaller.
Size Six Torps... yes.. that's all. I own a Polaris and this just feels right for this ship. Although I generally think that Torps need a huge rework to make them noticeably different than missiles other than just their size.
Snub hangar. So I have a bit of a more of an out there take. Space is three dimensional. So that rear area that has the useless rear turret put a snub pad there and have it have gravity, but also put a docking collar back there that rotates on the inside so an Argo can dock there, which can also double as a crew escape pod, but serve as a cargo transfer area to replenish while the ship is on patrol. The rotating airlock would flip the gravity of the personal transferring from the pad to the ship. If these ships are meant to picket an Idris-P should always be near enough to run resupply missions since that ship could have a more logistical role in a military fleet. Since the pad has gravity you can park what ever will fit out there if you are willing to walkout the rotating airlock and expose yourself during a fire fight. A pad would also not impact the lines of the ship back there. Secondly, There really should be a breaching pod for the Argo so if the ship is patrolling shipping lanes that it can act like a Coast Guard Zodiac and just board other ships. The cargo area should have some modularity so if you are doing that sort of mission you can sacrifice some of the cargo room for a bunk room for four to six marines and again be resupplied by an Idris-P which would serve as a logistical hub for the corvettes in the area. (Just trying to give the Idris-P a role that makes sense, since it doesn't in the current UEE paradigm)
Personally, I always thought on a ship like this they should make the mess hall table double as a T0 medical bed that just stabilizes a patient until a transfer can be arranged to the logistical hub ship to treat injuries. If CIG gave us hand tools to do surgery the old fashioned way (the way its done now and not with a magic laser beam or advanced medical equipment available on higher tier beds) this could be the place for that if a crew member feels confident enough that they can handle that.
did u post this on spectrum already?
yes a long time ago.. im probably going to redo this video sense i can do a better job and i didnt think it would get this big.
@@TheAngriestGamer. Good idea mate! I think this ship the most beautiful, shape, nice looking, but u know.. A huge with elephant in the room
Instead of a cargo bay and a lift i would rather they add some holding cells and an armory, plus sleeping quarters for a boarding party. maybe for like 4 Marines. i like your idea of that boarding craft that can dock on the side as a snub so no need for a hanger. And add the size 2 or 3 turrets to the tops of the size 7s and replace the rear turret for a missile battery for point defense. I would be ok if they also replaced the torpedos all together for room for small cargo storage and a medbay.
So are we putting this on spectrum so the devs can see it? Cuz they need to see it
I agree with several of your points where this ship is concerned. I feel the AA capability is lacking and that it could use another turret or two in that category. I also feel like it would be beneficial if they did some kind of corvette class bespoke flair system. Kind of Like a AC130. I have one other thought though I don’t imagine this as a Picket ship but more of a ship of the line. Because the crew compliment is so low it would be perfect to operate as a member of a small strike group. Three or more of these with escort focusing alpha strikes on singular targets, volleying targets into slag in the inky black. The Perseus seems to me born to be a fleet vessel.
i miss spoke like 80 times cuz i was tired when i made this and not following a script.
this ship does a couple things
It operates as part of a strike group in the brawler/skirmisher role, and goes in to attack other corvettes (size6)/Fast attack craft (size5) when it can. or B it does operate semi independently as a patrol ship protecting and policing shipping lanes when its not part of a fleet. In theory/lore it operates near the outer part of the fleet in the picket area hence why i said it so much, but its so its not really a screener like the Hammerhead is sense it wants to brake away and kill stuff, nor is it really a ship of the line like the Idris/Javalin/Cruiser. It wants to chase down and pick at the smaller units in an enemy fleet or join in a general attack on a larger target rather than stay behind or near something and defend.
Some of these comments are off base acting like this thing is a destroyer. Its not. Its a gun boat think of it as a redeemer for larger targets. Wheres the landing craft to board ships? This ship is the landing craft. Ship to ship boarding will be amazing. This ship isnt a capital ship this IS the satellite ship for a larger one.
None are off base, its a corvette/gunship. Ive seen all these comments and worse in the old forums surrounding this ship. People have so many Terrible takes on this thing and ship design in general for SC.
Also You dont have to be a capital ship to have a basic rounded set of capabilities. Also Basic competent defense does NOT equal murder everything with ease.
look at real life corvettes for example, they have helicopter pads, multiple weapons to engage several different types of threats, basic and even moderate levels of self defense, can hold their own
I melted this thing when I realized how terrible it will be. It basically needs to be a gunboat with big anti-capital cannons but instead it will do nothing well.
Fantastic thoughts!! Loved every idea. Agreed on every point you made. Hope this gets more views
Very cool! I fully agree with your points.
A military ship of this size should be able to defend against torpedoes to some extent and not need an escort of ship with a crew of 8 people.
Also, if you can just derp everything the size of a corvette and below with torpedoes, what is the point of this ship? Just send an Eclipse or Retaliator and it will do a better job than this thing.
If you have corvettes that can't just be deleted from existence with minimal effort, you also create a reason for capital ships to exist.
I think they need a lot more work on dedicated military ships.
For me, I would love to see more love for the Freelancer Mis.
I think they should allow you to go from two size threes weapons on the turrets to 1 size four weapon on each side, or hard point 1 size 5 on the sides.
Also, in the middle inside the ship where the extra cargo goes, I would like to see them add Armor and weapon closets/storage because I see it as being able to fight off targets and make landings for the crew.
Also for the turret on top, I don't see why it wouldn't be replaced with a large Gimble for a Single Size 3 weapon
A single S3 is worse than 2xS2.
2xS4 is worse than 4xS3.
The rear turret needs moved to the middle and the hump needs removed so it can shoot 180 degrees.
@@spider0804 Does 2 Size 3 have less power consumption than 1 size 4 for energy weapons?
@@DarkSpartana I don't know if you actually mean power consumption because what the ship uses versus what a power generator makes has not been balanced for a long time and it is not a worry but 2 size 3 guns will have more DPS than 1 size 4. You can look at all the numbers on erkul's DPS calculator.
The FL MIS is a Cargo ship (freighter) converted to a missle boat that happens to ahve side mounted guns. IF you fix those side guns and force them to rely on position and direction of the ship's nose, you're basically killing any chance it had of surviving at closer ranges. IT'S A FREIGHTER; it will not ever maneuver like a fighter.
You might as well be tryign to convert a Dump Truck to a Formula 1 Racer.
really love the ideas you have, except maybe the "spinal main gun"
I HIGHLY agree that the underbelly point defense turret is useless, the same exact problem with the missile turret on the nautilus
yes of course you can have specialized combat ship like the perseus, nautilus or hammerhead, but because the hammerhead is the specialized anti fighters and anti missiles corvet doesn't mean the other corvets are litteraly incapable of defending themselves, it's a critical weakness
Even todays aircraft carriers never go anywhere with escorts; yet, they still have lots of point defense themselves.
IDK about a pieces hangar but, they could just replace that rearward turret with another connie style merlin dock.
If they would make such a hangar and it would fit a sabre I would be very very very happy XD Modularity sounds realy good to. Let's hope they extend it to the perseus.
problem for me is the front turret sticking out so much, it gonna get trashed if you ram some ship as intended for this ship
It’s funny because if this version (minus the spinal mount) was the concept, I would have picked one up lol and I’m willing to bet I’m not the only one.
yeah after reading the comments here, i think its safe to say at-least 60% of the people who saw this video would of. myself included.
@@TheAngriestGamer. I just stumbled across your channel this morning, you got another sub bro
In my opinion, while your criticism are well-deserved and well said, there is an issue that will kill this ship much harder than any other, that nobody seems to talk about: The two main turrets do not have any overlap in their fields of fire, meaning that both turrets shooting the same target will be a nightmare to line up.
I have no idea why the ship doesn't have both turrets on top, because as cool as the Perseus is in theory, its design as is just doesn't work.
Well there's another point. If anything on those multiship ships has a bug or is dysfunctional somehow then the whole ship is prone to glitching out. The notion of jamming as much as you can into any particular vessel is cute but doesn't practically work. You only end up exposing yourself to multiple points of failure. Look at the Carrack alone. If you have an Ursa in there that dies, for a Pisces that somehow glitches, the whore Carrack is doomed.
I don't see why they can't make them both energy and kinetic if their bespoke, like a plasma bolt for Blaster Canons from Star Wars
That is not where I would have placed defensive turrets. I agree on removing the next to useless rear turret.(The rear turret should be replace with one or two rear facing torp launchers or a defensive missile launcher) I would have added a hammerhead style side turret on each side. You could remove the top turret and have two smaller defensive turrets on each side for a total of 4.
great work, I think these would make perfect sense, Perseus, Man of War edition.
I had a post on spectrum immediately after the Percy's release saying they need to move the ventral (ASS) turret to the chin of the ship so that it can cover the lower hemisphere... this is coming from a US Navy Firecontrolman... that rear turret is absolute dog poop.
What I also dont understand is they have shown that balancing wise there not scared of putting too many weapons on a ship. The A2 is in a ridicilous spot right now with the amount of Size 5 (M7A's) ur able to put on this thing. The maneuveribility is also S-Tier considering the Size of that thing. Then comes the amount of Noises/flares it has its absolutely wild. Due to that it is insanely strong and covers a lot of possibilities at least for me and my friends but I dont think anyones complaining about it bc well it kinda is the only military multicrew ship we have so far ingame. In my opinion the difference between the C2 and A2 should define what it means to be a military class Ship.
What I would say tho is that those should be (same as military components) really inefficient to run without having any objective in mind. I Wouldn't say it should be the Fuel that burns faster (having a military ship that runs out in like 30 mins is not the way) but rather refitting and repairing should hit your wallet hard (even put the claim times to an extreme which can be frustrating due to well most of the times dying to bugs ... but idk being able to claim a A2 in 15 mins ... is absolutely bonkers)
Im sure they might add to it later on ... maybe they have thought about it or maybe just maybe we are going to see that the maneuveribility of the Perseus (even Polaris tbh) will be the determining attribute to outclass other ships. Which to be fair I cant really imagine but yeah well imagination is kinda all we good right now :P
Great video btw!
cig should just hire you to design their combat ship layouts as soon as you unveiled your armament redesign i was like yeah that is something I would buy not because the ship looks cool but because it is functional.
What if, I mean If. What if CIG gives Perseus's S7 an Ammo system, u can change ammo type for different battle situations, like AP for anti large warship, APHE for medium, HE or VTHE for Airdefence, this will make it much better.
i seriously doubt the S7 turret will be able to track quickly enough to engage smaller ships. i also don't think the Ammo types like Flak are for things like S6+ guns. i think they are for other ships and guns so CIG doesn't have to make 400 different guns and can just let people change their ammo. Also look at what they did to the ares ships when they were killing light fighters, ive NEVER seen CIG Nerf something so fast, or even just move that fast to do something in my life. i really dont think they want heavy guns killing small things.
you can sit in and use the S7s on the javelin, and they turn SUPER SUPER SLOW. they made the old nerfed Redeemer turret look fast. Thankfully CIG unnerfed that turrets traverse speed but thats kinda what i expect for the Perseus.
idk i just dont have any faith in cig tbh, w/e they do im expecting it to be bad, half baked, over budget, and 6 years too late.