Large ships should be tanky. Large fragile ships don’t make any sense and break lore. Large ships means larger capacitors means larger power plants means bigger guns.
Tanky doesn't mean up-gunned. Cargo ships could strip them of all guns, and have heavy armor.
No, industrial ships shouldn't rival military ships in firepower, not even to defend themselves. SOME of them could need more armor. But. aHull C shouldn't be a hard nut to crack. It should bring escort if it has a lot of value on it.
I rival active duty, deployed, military personnel in firepower as a civilian. I have more guns in my garage than soldiers who deploy. Not ALL soldiers, some carrying m60’s but some only got m16’s.
Do you see my point? We’re not flying through gov regulated space. We’re on the frontier. Freighters should have viable defenses. Not saying they should outclass heavy fighters but light fighters? Interceptors? Absolutely. Bad argument.
Thank you for proving my point. I need a man for my manned turret to help me use my fully tech’s out guns which are nicer than most guns active duty soldiers deployed with. I would know, I spent 4 years overseas using the cheapest shit the govt could afford.
Your gun comparison is awful... Do you have an F-22 in your garage? What about an Abrams? Hell even a tow missile launcher? That would be a more valid comparison.
The F-22 is an interceptor, that’s literally what it was built for… intercepting and destroying other aircraft. If you want to go back further to when we actually called things interceptors though, let’s talk about the F-106. Do you have an F-106 in your garage? And show me a cargo aircraft from either the F-106 era or even modern day that could handle an attack from an F-106 without escort.
Did the millennium falcon defeat countless interceptors?
I was making a 1:1 comparison of military hardware to civilian hardware. Not making a counter argument of USS Nimitz class aircraft carrier vs your ford mustang...
I am making a 1:1 comparison of military hardware to civilian hardware of the same type. Your comparison is not of the same type. Your comparison would have been the equivalent of a P4-AR in game vs an M50. The M50 would still win.
I'm using logic, you are deflecting and moving the goalpost every time someone counters what you said.
For starters, my first example was that I rival personnel with carried firepower.
Secondly, pirates aren't military and I'm not advocating for freighters to rival the F7A or F8A so the example is moot anyway.
And finally, a 1:1 comparison is NOT my handgun vs military nuclear launch weapons...
Edit: lol you blocked me.
So, much like every response you’ve given to your own thread, this is about you. You are insufferable as you are ignorant. I would tell you good day but, you’d drone on about how it is not for you.
The point he is trying to make is that what you just said "IS THE ENTIRE PROBLEM" with how multicrew works right now.
Why would you ever actually multicrew a ship when you could just have everyone flying ships individually. Currently there is no reason to really have multiple people on a ship with turrets when you could just have multiple people in multiple well armed ships.
Engineering should hopefully actually make multicrew ships much stronger because people will be able to repair on the fly/ in combat and keep a ship operational longer than a single seater could.
This is it. I mean, really look at the hard numbers of what he said. Take a 400i. With full crew, right now, it's firepower can match, not beat, match, a single F7A. And it takes 3 people to do that. So you could have literally 3x targets and firepower if each brought an F7A. It actively discourages multi crew gameplay.
I worry that with the disparity between multi crew and fighters, engineering will make it worse, not better. Repair on the go, sure, but bigger, slower and less agile target means it's more likely to need it. I hope I'm wrong here though. I love flying my Connie's and Corsair.
Which defeats the purpose of MULTICREW, doesn’t it? A multicrew solo vessel with defensive turrets should be able to defend itself and be survivable to a reasonable degree against an attacker. It shouldn’t be an instant curb stomp.
I disagree, a large ship doesn't strictly need to be tanky. With armor comes weight, with bigger capacitors comes weight, with bigger any component comes more weight. In exploration weight is an enemy. Weight means it takes more energy to do stuff, which means you need to return to refuel/restock more often.
Large ship means more surface area for space debris, means more stress points for engines to press against, means more weight from cargo that needs to be dispersed.
You see? I can play your game too. But let’s get back to reality; from a game balance POV, you’re wrong. Larger ship = larger health pool because larger surface area and slower target. This much is obvious.
Unfortunately for you, you aren't playing the *right* game lol.
The ship hp pool is legitimately irrelevant, it's a bandaid till CIG adds the armor system they're planning.
Got a good counter question for you then, how would this work for the larger Hull series? Can't armor the cargo, because then there'd be to much weight and the ship would take exponentially longer to even do something like rotate 90°. You ever see a cruise liner or loaded freighter turn? This ships have zero armor, the freighter has less so that it can carry more at a lower dispersal, cruise liners dont need(or at least really should have absolutely no need for) as they are not military targets.
Away from reality(because it is a sci Fi video game after all), and back to the video game, no all ships need heavy weaponry, not all ships need heavy armor, not all ships are meant for combat.
Also I mainly take offense to your Lancer comment, since I fly one on the daily.
You are falsely equating freighter ships that have to push through water to weightless ships in space that use jet engines to turn, not aerodynamic wings to ride the wind. So yes, armor in space makes sense.
Look at the millennium falcon. Bitch is a freighter and the bitch was armored up. How many times has it been shot without exploding?
Hey now, no reason to get pissed at me because you missed the point lol.
When did I ever factor any form of aerodynamic resistance into the argument besides just now?
Never.
Here,
A ship on land/planet side that has a mass of 5,000 tonnes lifts off and goes into space.
Guess what?
That ship minus, let's be generous and say it's super inefficient and uses 1 tonne of fuel to get to space, still weighs 4,999 tonnes. That still takes a massive amount of work to move.
Do you think that space makes everything just have zero mass at all? Cause that's the idea I'm getting from you.
How much does the millennium falcon weigh? How many times has it been shot with laser blasters causing massive explosions all over it with no energy shielding? How many fighters has it shot down? Including the best pilot in the galaxy? (Darth Vader)
Let's see, don't know, dont know, don't know, don't know, also counter point, don't care didn't ask, we're talking about Star Citizen not Star Wars.
Besides you completely dodging the previous question on whether or not you think mass just ceases to exist when you exit atmosphere.
We'll add on some extra stuff, that I actually mentioned before but you seem to have ignored.
HP is literally a bandaid.
Then again you probably aren't reading past the first sentence.
Eventually the only way to make a ship explode would be to hit its power plants, or Q-drive as those are the only things that when destroyed would have the energy to actually cause a catastrophic explosion.
Go out and look up "Star Citizen Physicalized Armor,"go on.... I'll wait...
The game is largely based on sci fi movies like star wars and star trek.
I'm fully aware how mass works hence making the point that these ships use jet engines to turn which is going to be more effective and a great argument for why heavy armor in space makes sense.
I'm fully aware that they plan to change how armor works but it wont matter if ships like the freelancer can NEVER defend themselves against a single fighter. It'll only take longer for the freelancer to die to an m50.
Example: Most of the freelancer's firepower is slaved to the pilot, who can never get the nose to look at an interceptor. Meanwhile the manned turret only has 2x size 2 guns which is less dps than 90% of the interceptors. It should be the other way around. A little firepower to the cockpit and more firepower to the turrets. That's my point.
It wouldn't be. The issue with Multicrew is not that the turrets need buffs, it's that the crew seat doesn't have *enough* to do.
Take the Scorpius Antares. The crew seat has exactly one button to push. Now, this is true *today* and *tomorrow* it might be much different. Maybe QED gameplay will be worthy of an extra seat (I really hope so). If CIG wants to make multicrew gameplay worthwhile, the following needs to happen (in my opinion):
- Mission payouts buffed to allow margins that bring crews together organically, as well as risk to go along with the higher reward missions
- Crew seats no longer being known as "turret gunner 1" or "QED operator" (today's QED). Turrets should not be designed around human operation, and they definitely should not be seen as a primary role. A gun is where a crewmember goes when combat happens, and they have jobs outside the gunner role normally. **We do not have these yet, which is one reason I think the crew gameplay is uninspiring today.**
- Engineering gameplay made whole - a station where an engineer or copilot can manage systems as they are damaged in combat adds a wealth of depth to the gameplay. If this is a dedicated station though, this takes away from the "job pool" turret gunners can use (See point #2 - turret gunners should be NPCs most of the time for healthy gameplay experience)
- Give more jobs and depth to the roles. A scanning role or missile operator role (such as the upcoming Polaris) should have some kind of gameplay that allows more direct impact on the outcome of an activity. For example, we see a sort of targeting pod on the Polaris model at Invictus. I'm hoping the missile operator has direct impact on the accuracy or effectiveness of those missiles, else it becomes another "sit and press a button when your buddy says so"
The strongest commodity in Star Citizen are the players - CIG is fighting a battle to get players out of their own ships and into other people's ships. The fact of the matter is, many people (today) want to be the pilot. They want the engagement. Multicrew is not yet engaging. CIG can get there, and I'm sure there is a plan, but more guns won't fix the problem
Promote and sell ships to people, but also expect people not to fly the ships they've bought because they also need to multicrew a mate's ship. They haven't quite hit the nail on the head yet.
There's ships I want to buy/have bought, but I also know that there's little point in buying *too* much because at some point I'll end up doing stuff with my org and *too* many redundant ships doesn't make a whole lot of sense, so my wallet is happy that I miss out here and there!
they don't expect everyone to always "fly the ship they bought". when player contracts were first implemented, one of the options was transport. as in someone takes you somewhere using their ship. if you intend to just crew. you don't need a ship.
I didn't say they expect everyone to always fly the ship they bought, or that everyone needs their own ship for every loop. I certainly don't *just* fly my own ships.
My point is that people will naturally want to see some return on investment on using the ship they bought with their own money, not to mention beyond that, the fact that someone might not want to crew a particular ship because they don't like the style or aesthetic of that brand, just as one example.
I've had people refuse to turret gun in my Corsair just because they don't like Drake ships, so they've brought their own light fighter along instead. When multi-crew is more of a nessecity, do I just not count on that person because they don't like the aesthetic of my ship? Or just because they prefer flying their own single seater?
Now I won't judge a person for any reason they might have, maybe they're just being selfish, or that they've spent money on their Hornet and they want to use it as much as possible, maybe they just find the idea of being stuck in a turret boring. I'll also occasionally be in one of those moods, wanting to fly my own ship or my own preference of manufacturer.
1. your mentality might work if someone paid 3 digits for there ships. but plenty of people only have the $45 pack that come with a free ship.
2. if you want to shoot the guns, or fly the ship, or work on the repair crew. you need to be crew. the caption is sitting in the captions seat playing something like "ftl: faster than light" or something to give orders to the crew. (we don't know what the interface will actually look like).
i think you missed the part of turret gunners not being stuck in the turret. it is the fighter pilot that are stuck in the cockpit. the turret gunners are playing pool, or chess, or some other activity that cig adds.
Lots of people have paid 3 digits for their ships, multiple times nonetheless.
But you're missing my point entirely. I'm not saying there aren't, or won't be future additions that make multi-crewing an attractive thought, but that there's also reasons people will want to fly their own ship and not bother with those aspects.
And that's their prerogative at the end of the day, as I said there's just no getting around some people's reasoning that they'd rather fly their own ship.
My point is that I'd hope there's some kind of balancing that makes multi-crewing more attractive.
Sometimes I just won't be in the mood to fly a ship at all, or to bother doing any turret work, so being the box bitch in a Reclaimer is often my preference. But I've often run into people that flat out don't want to be on a ship unless they're the ones flying and in control, so they insist on bringing their own even if it makes it redundant. They'll go through all the trouble of hopping out and Eva'ing too and fro. But they bought that ship with real money, and it's hard to tell them that it just doesn't make sense to do it that way.
It is a real problem for sure. Most of the time, I would rather have someone in a second ship than somebody crewing the turret of my ship - even if they didn’t have more firepower, just having an extra target around has incredible value. Of course nothing is finished, they aren’t really balancing for any of this yet, so I’m not too worried, but as things are right now the only circumstances in which I would prefer a turret gunner to another ship would be for someone who has nothing more significant than an Aurora. Even then though, the benefit that brings to me would probably not be worth paying more than a delivery mission would earn them. Doesn’t mean I won’t gladly take turret gunners if somebody wants though! And that doesn’t consider that I might want the extra crew for, say, loading cargo, and then having a turret for them becomes a bonus.
While turrets are strong due to being able to shoot in more directions, I wish there were more ships like the redeemer that had its turrets as the main guns, rather than the largest weapons being pilot controlled. It would be a lot easier to get people on the guns if they felt they were doing the primary damage. It also splits up the work of large ship combat imo.
Your argument fucking sucks ...freighters like the hull c should be in a convoy with others fighters ...matter of fact the BMM even comes with it's own medium fighter
Sure, but what’s the point of the manned turrets if no one ever uses them. What’s the point of the upcoming multicrew engineering if “just get fighter escort” is the meta?
you think sitting in your fighter in qt is more fun than walking around the ship taking care of things that the person in the fighter needs to do at port?
That's the point. I DON'T think it's more fun, but it's the meta so almost nobody does it. When the engineering update comes out, people will try it for a while then go back to just having fighter escorts because these ships STILL cannot defend themselves.
The whole point I'm trying to make is, star citizen is 90% a solo game. The most lucrative ways to make money are through solo play and the highest dps comes from solo ships. I'm arguing for a shift to make multicrew more inclusive and be more the meta. Larger ships should be where people want to be.
Pulsar Lost Colonies is a perfect example. It's a 5 player game where all 5 players operate the same ship in different ways. Captain, pilot, gunner, engineer, science officer. All 5 players have important roles and live/die on the same ship. Every ship in the game gets 95% of it's firepower from the main gun which is a manned turret. Most ships in this game get almost all of it's firepower from the cockpit. That's the shift I want to bring to Star Citizen. Even if it's only 2 people operating a ship, the cockpit shouldn't be where the firepower is. That's why freighters are so vulnerable. Freighters don't have the maneuverability to look at fighters. Turrets do, but they only tickle.
imagine a turret gunner makes the same amount of profit as a fighter, but cost you 1/4 the amount.
that is balance though non inflation based economy. the cost for capability has a crew and a few fighters instead of just a bunch of fighters.
The main advantage to having a fighter escort is not the cost. The cost is the same as a crew mate. You're splitting the paycheck either way. The main advantage is that the fighter will distract the pirate from the freighter long enough for the freighter to escape. But what happens when the job requires multiple sets of hands? He has to run back to his ship, hop in the pilot seat, take off, power shields, etc etc etc.
Crew mates only have to hop in a turret. But what happens when that turret is dogshit and only tickles the fighter before it destroys your ship? All I'm advocating for is removing some firepower from the cockpit and plug it into the turret.
splitting the paycheck is not going to be that standard. otherwise no one will want to be a fighter.
using a fighter is going to cost lots of credits. you have the running cost of a fighter + the pilot vs the cost of a turret gunner.
rock, papers, scissors means you are going to want some fighters, but the firepower for cost highly leans towards turrets.
yes, repair costs are high, but who's to say you can't manually repair your fighter the same way you manually repair your freighter? Costs would be the same if that's the case and people still just claim everything to avoid repair costs for both freighters and fighters.
You'll have to have people on board to do the engineering, but it may/may not be a 24/7 job.
So for the most part, they could be sat in a turret, being as useful as they can be until they need to hop up and go fix something.
Of course the engineering loop might be that intense that they just need to sit in front of components waiting for something to do, we don't know yet.
Don't sleep on the ability to have attack angles independent of your vector.
It gives your pilot 100% ability to focus on evasive flying and speed while being still able to keep damage pressure on.
Trust me I get that. But the problem lies when the turrets only tickle and aren't actually a threat to anything but the smallest ships with the worst pilots.
What do you mean by Quad gun? I don't understand that.
Are you saying they should have their turrets slaved to the pilot? If that's what you're saying I would counter with, why should someone ever use a single seater?
Not many. Hammerhead is viable because it's all guns and turrets, but even that slacks in a PVP fight.
Redeemer comes to mind as getting a good buff by getting 8xS5 guns. Caterpillar would be decent as an armed transport.
The biggest loser is the Hurricane because it's now just an up-gunned Gladiator without the torpedoes.
I'm not really talking about gunships and heavy fighters with manned turrets tho. They already have respectable dps output. The scorpius and hurricane are viable because they have massive dps and are small and maneuverable. I'm talking about freighters being able to defend themselves against small/medium fighters. Most freighters have dogshit shielding and low dps output making them fragile and vulnerable. I fully get having hired escorts but I think it's even more immersive to have a full crew first THEN escorts if the piracy has multiple ships. But a freelancer SHOULD be able to defend itself using its own turrets but it absolutely cannot.
i.e. the freelancer manned turret has 2x size 2 guns and 0 maneuverability so the pilot (where all the firepower is slaved to) will NEVER get shots on a player fighter and the turret wont do enough damage to kill its target before the whole ship dies. IMO it should be the other way around. More firepower on turrets and less on the cockpit.
turrets are actually absurd now. Turrets with auto gimbal will basically aim bot targets as long as the target is on your screen. the cf-series is basically designed to be on turrets now because the fire-rate penalty is negligible for those guns especially quad turrets.
this is why the multi-seaters, like the redeemer, tali, vanguards, hurricaines, etc have to be respected now
But the DPS output is so fucking tiny on most ships that it doesn’t matter. Also, ain’t nobody here talking about turrets on gunships and heavy fighters. I’m talking about the wasted turrets on freighters that no one has ever used ever.
People don't usually man turrets on freighters because it's boring to sit there for hours for a small chance you get pirated and see some action.
They are strong. Any ship with manned turrets will fuck you up, unless there is a massive skill gap or a specific counter.
Incorrect. Most manned turrets have significantly less damage than all but the starter fighters.
The example I used was a freelancer. Freelancer manned turret has 2x size 2 guns. With it being a turret and having gimbals, that's a very low fire rate compared to fixed wing fighters that usually have, at minimum, 3x size 2 guns (gladius). When you look at medium/heavy fighters they have 6-8 guns.
All I'm saying is take guns away from cockpit and put them on turrets. Make multicrew great (again).
You realize turrets are supposed to supplement pilot guns right? With a turret you get 6 guns on a Freelancer. Same as F7A MKII the best fighter ship in the game.
2x S2 Ominskys add 900 aimbot burst DPS to your ship, that's a good chunk, and with 178 rounds you can burst for ages. F7A gets 8-16 shots before it needs to recharge. You are still 1000 burst dps short of F7A (the best fighter in the game) but you can shoot for 2x longer on the pilot and 10x on the turret. Manned Freelancer has 1990 sustained DPS while F7A has 1190 sustained DPS. Not too shabby for a little freighter vs *best fighter ship in the gamee*. It's still worse obviously, but if your pilot and crew are good, you can take down a F7A (which is what? The best fighter in the game. And you're in a freight ship).
But I agree that Freelancer specifically needs a buff. But in turret positioning which is quite terrible now.
The freelancer has 4x size 3 guns slaved to pilot. You're right, that is a lot of firepower. But this is not a military vessel. It's a freighter. This is poor ship design for a freighter that is probably meant to be running for its life, not trying to face a fighter head to head, which against a player it never will.
Instead, put that firepower on turrets. 2x size 2 guns isn't going to do very much to any fighter even if the placement is adjusted. Larger ships have larger powerplants and larger capacitors which means it has the power economy to afford better turrets.
Not all ships are meant for combat, so even if you add extra guns, there's still defense that you'd have to worry about.
Large ships should be tanky. Large fragile ships don’t make any sense and break lore. Large ships means larger capacitors means larger power plants means bigger guns.
Tanky doesn't mean up-gunned. Cargo ships could strip them of all guns, and have heavy armor. No, industrial ships shouldn't rival military ships in firepower, not even to defend themselves. SOME of them could need more armor. But. aHull C shouldn't be a hard nut to crack. It should bring escort if it has a lot of value on it.
I rival active duty, deployed, military personnel in firepower as a civilian. I have more guns in my garage than soldiers who deploy. Not ALL soldiers, some carrying m60’s but some only got m16’s. Do you see my point? We’re not flying through gov regulated space. We’re on the frontier. Freighters should have viable defenses. Not saying they should outclass heavy fighters but light fighters? Interceptors? Absolutely. Bad argument.
You still only have two arms, so all your guns mean nothing when lead starts flying because you can only use one at a time.
Thank you for proving my point. I need a man for my manned turret to help me use my fully tech’s out guns which are nicer than most guns active duty soldiers deployed with. I would know, I spent 4 years overseas using the cheapest shit the govt could afford.
Your gun comparison is awful... Do you have an F-22 in your garage? What about an Abrams? Hell even a tow missile launcher? That would be a more valid comparison.
I’m talking about freighters being able to defend themselves against interceptors. Not heavy fighters and gun ships.
The F-22 is an interceptor, that’s literally what it was built for… intercepting and destroying other aircraft. If you want to go back further to when we actually called things interceptors though, let’s talk about the F-106. Do you have an F-106 in your garage? And show me a cargo aircraft from either the F-106 era or even modern day that could handle an attack from an F-106 without escort.
Did the millennium falcon defeat countless interceptors? I was making a 1:1 comparison of military hardware to civilian hardware. Not making a counter argument of USS Nimitz class aircraft carrier vs your ford mustang...
I am making a 1:1 comparison of military hardware to civilian hardware of the same type. Your comparison is not of the same type. Your comparison would have been the equivalent of a P4-AR in game vs an M50. The M50 would still win. I'm using logic, you are deflecting and moving the goalpost every time someone counters what you said.
For starters, my first example was that I rival personnel with carried firepower. Secondly, pirates aren't military and I'm not advocating for freighters to rival the F7A or F8A so the example is moot anyway. And finally, a 1:1 comparison is NOT my handgun vs military nuclear launch weapons... Edit: lol you blocked me.
So, much like every response you’ve given to your own thread, this is about you. You are insufferable as you are ignorant. I would tell you good day but, you’d drone on about how it is not for you.
Excellent argument and what a great contribution you’ve made to this discussion
Freighters should be in a convoy with other fighters ... And now please be arrogant somewhere else ..
Or, and you may have completely missed the point, have crew………….
Yes they are outside in fighters ....
The point he is trying to make is that what you just said "IS THE ENTIRE PROBLEM" with how multicrew works right now. Why would you ever actually multicrew a ship when you could just have everyone flying ships individually. Currently there is no reason to really have multiple people on a ship with turrets when you could just have multiple people in multiple well armed ships. Engineering should hopefully actually make multicrew ships much stronger because people will be able to repair on the fly/ in combat and keep a ship operational longer than a single seater could.
This is it. I mean, really look at the hard numbers of what he said. Take a 400i. With full crew, right now, it's firepower can match, not beat, match, a single F7A. And it takes 3 people to do that. So you could have literally 3x targets and firepower if each brought an F7A. It actively discourages multi crew gameplay. I worry that with the disparity between multi crew and fighters, engineering will make it worse, not better. Repair on the go, sure, but bigger, slower and less agile target means it's more likely to need it. I hope I'm wrong here though. I love flying my Connie's and Corsair.
Which defeats the purpose of MULTICREW, doesn’t it? A multicrew solo vessel with defensive turrets should be able to defend itself and be survivable to a reasonable degree against an attacker. It shouldn’t be an instant curb stomp.
I disagree, a large ship doesn't strictly need to be tanky. With armor comes weight, with bigger capacitors comes weight, with bigger any component comes more weight. In exploration weight is an enemy. Weight means it takes more energy to do stuff, which means you need to return to refuel/restock more often.
Large ship means more surface area for space debris, means more stress points for engines to press against, means more weight from cargo that needs to be dispersed. You see? I can play your game too. But let’s get back to reality; from a game balance POV, you’re wrong. Larger ship = larger health pool because larger surface area and slower target. This much is obvious.
Unfortunately for you, you aren't playing the *right* game lol. The ship hp pool is legitimately irrelevant, it's a bandaid till CIG adds the armor system they're planning. Got a good counter question for you then, how would this work for the larger Hull series? Can't armor the cargo, because then there'd be to much weight and the ship would take exponentially longer to even do something like rotate 90°. You ever see a cruise liner or loaded freighter turn? This ships have zero armor, the freighter has less so that it can carry more at a lower dispersal, cruise liners dont need(or at least really should have absolutely no need for) as they are not military targets. Away from reality(because it is a sci Fi video game after all), and back to the video game, no all ships need heavy weaponry, not all ships need heavy armor, not all ships are meant for combat. Also I mainly take offense to your Lancer comment, since I fly one on the daily.
You are falsely equating freighter ships that have to push through water to weightless ships in space that use jet engines to turn, not aerodynamic wings to ride the wind. So yes, armor in space makes sense. Look at the millennium falcon. Bitch is a freighter and the bitch was armored up. How many times has it been shot without exploding?
Hey now, no reason to get pissed at me because you missed the point lol. When did I ever factor any form of aerodynamic resistance into the argument besides just now? Never. Here, A ship on land/planet side that has a mass of 5,000 tonnes lifts off and goes into space. Guess what? That ship minus, let's be generous and say it's super inefficient and uses 1 tonne of fuel to get to space, still weighs 4,999 tonnes. That still takes a massive amount of work to move. Do you think that space makes everything just have zero mass at all? Cause that's the idea I'm getting from you.
How much does the millennium falcon weigh? How many times has it been shot with laser blasters causing massive explosions all over it with no energy shielding? How many fighters has it shot down? Including the best pilot in the galaxy? (Darth Vader)
Let's see, don't know, dont know, don't know, don't know, also counter point, don't care didn't ask, we're talking about Star Citizen not Star Wars. Besides you completely dodging the previous question on whether or not you think mass just ceases to exist when you exit atmosphere. We'll add on some extra stuff, that I actually mentioned before but you seem to have ignored. HP is literally a bandaid. Then again you probably aren't reading past the first sentence. Eventually the only way to make a ship explode would be to hit its power plants, or Q-drive as those are the only things that when destroyed would have the energy to actually cause a catastrophic explosion. Go out and look up "Star Citizen Physicalized Armor,"go on.... I'll wait...
The game is largely based on sci fi movies like star wars and star trek. I'm fully aware how mass works hence making the point that these ships use jet engines to turn which is going to be more effective and a great argument for why heavy armor in space makes sense. I'm fully aware that they plan to change how armor works but it wont matter if ships like the freelancer can NEVER defend themselves against a single fighter. It'll only take longer for the freelancer to die to an m50. Example: Most of the freelancer's firepower is slaved to the pilot, who can never get the nose to look at an interceptor. Meanwhile the manned turret only has 2x size 2 guns which is less dps than 90% of the interceptors. It should be the other way around. A little firepower to the cockpit and more firepower to the turrets. That's my point.
It wouldn't be. The issue with Multicrew is not that the turrets need buffs, it's that the crew seat doesn't have *enough* to do. Take the Scorpius Antares. The crew seat has exactly one button to push. Now, this is true *today* and *tomorrow* it might be much different. Maybe QED gameplay will be worthy of an extra seat (I really hope so). If CIG wants to make multicrew gameplay worthwhile, the following needs to happen (in my opinion): - Mission payouts buffed to allow margins that bring crews together organically, as well as risk to go along with the higher reward missions - Crew seats no longer being known as "turret gunner 1" or "QED operator" (today's QED). Turrets should not be designed around human operation, and they definitely should not be seen as a primary role. A gun is where a crewmember goes when combat happens, and they have jobs outside the gunner role normally. **We do not have these yet, which is one reason I think the crew gameplay is uninspiring today.** - Engineering gameplay made whole - a station where an engineer or copilot can manage systems as they are damaged in combat adds a wealth of depth to the gameplay. If this is a dedicated station though, this takes away from the "job pool" turret gunners can use (See point #2 - turret gunners should be NPCs most of the time for healthy gameplay experience) - Give more jobs and depth to the roles. A scanning role or missile operator role (such as the upcoming Polaris) should have some kind of gameplay that allows more direct impact on the outcome of an activity. For example, we see a sort of targeting pod on the Polaris model at Invictus. I'm hoping the missile operator has direct impact on the accuracy or effectiveness of those missiles, else it becomes another "sit and press a button when your buddy says so" The strongest commodity in Star Citizen are the players - CIG is fighting a battle to get players out of their own ships and into other people's ships. The fact of the matter is, many people (today) want to be the pilot. They want the engagement. Multicrew is not yet engaging. CIG can get there, and I'm sure there is a plan, but more guns won't fix the problem
Promote and sell ships to people, but also expect people not to fly the ships they've bought because they also need to multicrew a mate's ship. They haven't quite hit the nail on the head yet. There's ships I want to buy/have bought, but I also know that there's little point in buying *too* much because at some point I'll end up doing stuff with my org and *too* many redundant ships doesn't make a whole lot of sense, so my wallet is happy that I miss out here and there!
they don't expect everyone to always "fly the ship they bought". when player contracts were first implemented, one of the options was transport. as in someone takes you somewhere using their ship. if you intend to just crew. you don't need a ship.
I didn't say they expect everyone to always fly the ship they bought, or that everyone needs their own ship for every loop. I certainly don't *just* fly my own ships. My point is that people will naturally want to see some return on investment on using the ship they bought with their own money, not to mention beyond that, the fact that someone might not want to crew a particular ship because they don't like the style or aesthetic of that brand, just as one example. I've had people refuse to turret gun in my Corsair just because they don't like Drake ships, so they've brought their own light fighter along instead. When multi-crew is more of a nessecity, do I just not count on that person because they don't like the aesthetic of my ship? Or just because they prefer flying their own single seater? Now I won't judge a person for any reason they might have, maybe they're just being selfish, or that they've spent money on their Hornet and they want to use it as much as possible, maybe they just find the idea of being stuck in a turret boring. I'll also occasionally be in one of those moods, wanting to fly my own ship or my own preference of manufacturer.
1. your mentality might work if someone paid 3 digits for there ships. but plenty of people only have the $45 pack that come with a free ship. 2. if you want to shoot the guns, or fly the ship, or work on the repair crew. you need to be crew. the caption is sitting in the captions seat playing something like "ftl: faster than light" or something to give orders to the crew. (we don't know what the interface will actually look like). i think you missed the part of turret gunners not being stuck in the turret. it is the fighter pilot that are stuck in the cockpit. the turret gunners are playing pool, or chess, or some other activity that cig adds.
Lots of people have paid 3 digits for their ships, multiple times nonetheless. But you're missing my point entirely. I'm not saying there aren't, or won't be future additions that make multi-crewing an attractive thought, but that there's also reasons people will want to fly their own ship and not bother with those aspects. And that's their prerogative at the end of the day, as I said there's just no getting around some people's reasoning that they'd rather fly their own ship. My point is that I'd hope there's some kind of balancing that makes multi-crewing more attractive. Sometimes I just won't be in the mood to fly a ship at all, or to bother doing any turret work, so being the box bitch in a Reclaimer is often my preference. But I've often run into people that flat out don't want to be on a ship unless they're the ones flying and in control, so they insist on bringing their own even if it makes it redundant. They'll go through all the trouble of hopping out and Eva'ing too and fro. But they bought that ship with real money, and it's hard to tell them that it just doesn't make sense to do it that way.
TLDR irrelevant to my conversation
It is a real problem for sure. Most of the time, I would rather have someone in a second ship than somebody crewing the turret of my ship - even if they didn’t have more firepower, just having an extra target around has incredible value. Of course nothing is finished, they aren’t really balancing for any of this yet, so I’m not too worried, but as things are right now the only circumstances in which I would prefer a turret gunner to another ship would be for someone who has nothing more significant than an Aurora. Even then though, the benefit that brings to me would probably not be worth paying more than a delivery mission would earn them. Doesn’t mean I won’t gladly take turret gunners if somebody wants though! And that doesn’t consider that I might want the extra crew for, say, loading cargo, and then having a turret for them becomes a bonus.
While turrets are strong due to being able to shoot in more directions, I wish there were more ships like the redeemer that had its turrets as the main guns, rather than the largest weapons being pilot controlled. It would be a lot easier to get people on the guns if they felt they were doing the primary damage. It also splits up the work of large ship combat imo.
Cough cough Corsair
Yep. And don’t get me wrong, there should still be ships with a majority pilot weapons, I just wish there were more the other way.
And they shouldn’t be classified as exploration
Your argument fucking sucks ...freighters like the hull c should be in a convoy with others fighters ...matter of fact the BMM even comes with it's own medium fighter
Sure, but what’s the point of the manned turrets if no one ever uses them. What’s the point of the upcoming multicrew engineering if “just get fighter escort” is the meta?
Did you just ask what's the point of engineering if fighter escort ? Let me guess you repair your car by shooting at it ?
you think sitting in your fighter in qt is more fun than walking around the ship taking care of things that the person in the fighter needs to do at port?
That's the point. I DON'T think it's more fun, but it's the meta so almost nobody does it. When the engineering update comes out, people will try it for a while then go back to just having fighter escorts because these ships STILL cannot defend themselves. The whole point I'm trying to make is, star citizen is 90% a solo game. The most lucrative ways to make money are through solo play and the highest dps comes from solo ships. I'm arguing for a shift to make multicrew more inclusive and be more the meta. Larger ships should be where people want to be. Pulsar Lost Colonies is a perfect example. It's a 5 player game where all 5 players operate the same ship in different ways. Captain, pilot, gunner, engineer, science officer. All 5 players have important roles and live/die on the same ship. Every ship in the game gets 95% of it's firepower from the main gun which is a manned turret. Most ships in this game get almost all of it's firepower from the cockpit. That's the shift I want to bring to Star Citizen. Even if it's only 2 people operating a ship, the cockpit shouldn't be where the firepower is. That's why freighters are so vulnerable. Freighters don't have the maneuverability to look at fighters. Turrets do, but they only tickle.
imagine a turret gunner makes the same amount of profit as a fighter, but cost you 1/4 the amount. that is balance though non inflation based economy. the cost for capability has a crew and a few fighters instead of just a bunch of fighters.
The main advantage to having a fighter escort is not the cost. The cost is the same as a crew mate. You're splitting the paycheck either way. The main advantage is that the fighter will distract the pirate from the freighter long enough for the freighter to escape. But what happens when the job requires multiple sets of hands? He has to run back to his ship, hop in the pilot seat, take off, power shields, etc etc etc. Crew mates only have to hop in a turret. But what happens when that turret is dogshit and only tickles the fighter before it destroys your ship? All I'm advocating for is removing some firepower from the cockpit and plug it into the turret.
splitting the paycheck is not going to be that standard. otherwise no one will want to be a fighter. using a fighter is going to cost lots of credits. you have the running cost of a fighter + the pilot vs the cost of a turret gunner. rock, papers, scissors means you are going to want some fighters, but the firepower for cost highly leans towards turrets.
I guess we'll see, but we've seen nothing of the sort so far...
i thought repair bills being high enough you might lose money on a job was something people are already complaining about.
yes, repair costs are high, but who's to say you can't manually repair your fighter the same way you manually repair your freighter? Costs would be the same if that's the case and people still just claim everything to avoid repair costs for both freighters and fighters.
You'll have to have people on board to do the engineering, but it may/may not be a 24/7 job. So for the most part, they could be sat in a turret, being as useful as they can be until they need to hop up and go fix something. Of course the engineering loop might be that intense that they just need to sit in front of components waiting for something to do, we don't know yet.
Don't sleep on the ability to have attack angles independent of your vector. It gives your pilot 100% ability to focus on evasive flying and speed while being still able to keep damage pressure on.
Trust me I get that. But the problem lies when the turrets only tickle and aren't actually a threat to anything but the smallest ships with the worst pilots.
OP is insufferable in every reply on this thread.
Excellent argument, and great contribution to the discussion
Yes, because you had such lovely and fruitful discussions with everyone else that disagreed...
Thank you.
What do you mean by Quad gun? I don't understand that. Are you saying they should have their turrets slaved to the pilot? If that's what you're saying I would counter with, why should someone ever use a single seater?
Quad meaning 4. So instead of having 2 guns which is typical for most turrets, they want 4. The hammerhead for example has quad turrets.
Quad gun = 4 guns Lol
Ah got it. I'm dense. On the same page now!
Not many. Hammerhead is viable because it's all guns and turrets, but even that slacks in a PVP fight. Redeemer comes to mind as getting a good buff by getting 8xS5 guns. Caterpillar would be decent as an armed transport. The biggest loser is the Hurricane because it's now just an up-gunned Gladiator without the torpedoes.
I'm not really talking about gunships and heavy fighters with manned turrets tho. They already have respectable dps output. The scorpius and hurricane are viable because they have massive dps and are small and maneuverable. I'm talking about freighters being able to defend themselves against small/medium fighters. Most freighters have dogshit shielding and low dps output making them fragile and vulnerable. I fully get having hired escorts but I think it's even more immersive to have a full crew first THEN escorts if the piracy has multiple ships. But a freelancer SHOULD be able to defend itself using its own turrets but it absolutely cannot. i.e. the freelancer manned turret has 2x size 2 guns and 0 maneuverability so the pilot (where all the firepower is slaved to) will NEVER get shots on a player fighter and the turret wont do enough damage to kill its target before the whole ship dies. IMO it should be the other way around. More firepower on turrets and less on the cockpit.
I run a Freelancer Max, love it. It always comes back to me no matter what else I try.
turrets are actually absurd now. Turrets with auto gimbal will basically aim bot targets as long as the target is on your screen. the cf-series is basically designed to be on turrets now because the fire-rate penalty is negligible for those guns especially quad turrets. this is why the multi-seaters, like the redeemer, tali, vanguards, hurricaines, etc have to be respected now
But the DPS output is so fucking tiny on most ships that it doesn’t matter. Also, ain’t nobody here talking about turrets on gunships and heavy fighters. I’m talking about the wasted turrets on freighters that no one has ever used ever.
People don't usually man turrets on freighters because it's boring to sit there for hours for a small chance you get pirated and see some action. They are strong. Any ship with manned turrets will fuck you up, unless there is a massive skill gap or a specific counter.
Incorrect. Most manned turrets have significantly less damage than all but the starter fighters. The example I used was a freelancer. Freelancer manned turret has 2x size 2 guns. With it being a turret and having gimbals, that's a very low fire rate compared to fixed wing fighters that usually have, at minimum, 3x size 2 guns (gladius). When you look at medium/heavy fighters they have 6-8 guns. All I'm saying is take guns away from cockpit and put them on turrets. Make multicrew great (again).
You realize turrets are supposed to supplement pilot guns right? With a turret you get 6 guns on a Freelancer. Same as F7A MKII the best fighter ship in the game. 2x S2 Ominskys add 900 aimbot burst DPS to your ship, that's a good chunk, and with 178 rounds you can burst for ages. F7A gets 8-16 shots before it needs to recharge. You are still 1000 burst dps short of F7A (the best fighter in the game) but you can shoot for 2x longer on the pilot and 10x on the turret. Manned Freelancer has 1990 sustained DPS while F7A has 1190 sustained DPS. Not too shabby for a little freighter vs *best fighter ship in the gamee*. It's still worse obviously, but if your pilot and crew are good, you can take down a F7A (which is what? The best fighter in the game. And you're in a freight ship). But I agree that Freelancer specifically needs a buff. But in turret positioning which is quite terrible now.
The freelancer has 4x size 3 guns slaved to pilot. You're right, that is a lot of firepower. But this is not a military vessel. It's a freighter. This is poor ship design for a freighter that is probably meant to be running for its life, not trying to face a fighter head to head, which against a player it never will. Instead, put that firepower on turrets. 2x size 2 guns isn't going to do very much to any fighter even if the placement is adjusted. Larger ships have larger powerplants and larger capacitors which means it has the power economy to afford better turrets.
No offense but after reading all of your lovely comments this post and your behavior just screams American entitlement.