Does Master Modes Need More Work? (Ft. Avenger__One & Splen) | Launch Sequence Podcast

Master Modes is likely the most contentious topic in Star Citizen at the moment. It's a major change to the way flight works. But did you know it's a change BACK to more familiar waters, just with a twist? Today I talk with Splen and Avenger__One, two long-time players who have opinions on master modes and just how much it does for the game. Enjoy!
Today’s Guests:
Avenger__One
Twitch - / avenger__one
KZbin - / @avenger__one
Splen
Twitch: / splenshepard
ToC:
00:00 Introductions
02:30 Why Do You Care About Master Modes?
08:00 How Is Master Modes Like Old Star Citizen?
16:05 Is Master Modes Balanced Well?
22:30 What Else Can Be Used For Balance?
26:50 Why Is This Change Happening?
40:10 What Would Make Master Modes Better For The Game?
42:25 Capital Ship Gameplay
52:00 Where To Go From Here
01:03:15 Are We Losing The Space Sim Aspect?
Support Space Tomato:
Patreon: / spacetomato
Paypal: paypal.me/SpaceTomatoPays?loc...
Gaming Community: / discord
Star Citizen Organization/Guild: gii.spacetomatogaming.com/
Start a Star Citizen account with 5000 extra credits in your pocket with the link below.
www.jointomato.com/
#starcitizen #spacetomato #podcast #mastermodes

[@rrahh517]

Never heard of Splen before but he is super eloquent and impressive.

[@alttaab]

I feel like a lot of people are distracted by A1s dominating of the convo but I feel like Splen deserves kudos for getting his message across in a less alarmist and dramatic way. Much easier to take his opinion seriously when he’s calm, reasonable and sounds like he appreciates other’s perspectives.

[@Rummyson]

A1, i think, is a bit biased... He's upset that his Arrow can't dominate everything anymore. A majority of the playerbase is not interested in PVP, like he is. Also, we all know that MM will go through multiple iterations before it's all said and done.

[@LucidStrike]

​@@Rummyson I think also he's just overall exceptionally passionate and invested even for an enthusiast. Like I'm REALLY into SC, but A1 is outright obsessed. And I don't mean that critically. I mean he SUFFERS shit deeply that for most of us is just a mild annoyance.

[@Liopleurodon]

@@Rummysonbiased, sure, I mean he does say that much just by stating he made a whole channel about teaching people to fly. But "that his Arros can't dominate everything" has nothing to do with MMs, infact it is still possible and done right now and b) MMs will heavily impact non-pvp and non-combat players aswell. Just take the example at the end about NVA mode... it will cause an even more "Dark Forrest" approach to ANY playerinteraction, leading to a much more toxic community. The problem with iterations of MM is that they're already redundant by ongoing works like weapons balance and component gameplay... they will just fade out of existence in the long run, but until then hurt the gameplay in to many ways that the question arises if people will keep playing or come back after they've been turned off by it.

[@CitizenScott]

@@Rummyson "A1, i think, is a bit biased..." Massive understatement 💀

[@yous2244]

​@@RummysonI absolutely hate master modes too and I don't do pvp much, it literally takes all of your freedom and made fighting based on skill to based on equipment so pay to win

[@CitizenScott]

Splen is the man! What a great guest Splen is! Love hearing from someone like Splen, who is not only knowledgable and experienced, but also very grounded and reasonable, and able to separate his opinions from objective reality! I wish more folks in this community would carry themselves like Splen! Gotta have Splen back soon!

[@ronja99]

This message brought to you by Splen (C) (all rights reserved, no guarantees or warrantees expressed or implied, your results may vary)

[@aidancuite6919]

Splen.

[@checkfortunnels]

"Are they actually trying to bring ships closer?" Yes. They've said so. They want S42 to be close and slow like the WW2 dogfighting games from 20+ years ago. They have to make S42 combat accessible to every casual who buys it, and that system will be the same one in SC, but SC needs to allow a high skill ceiling in order to keep serious players interested. I don't know how they're going to thread that needle.

[@LucidStrike]

Other than Armor and Engineering, there's also the matter of component choice which will probably mean A LOT more than it does now, once there's a broader market of components and then the introduction of subcomponents. Was weird those things weren't covered in the balance section of the discussion.

[@Splincir]

I like all the guys on this panel. But avenger in particular wouldn't bring up other gameplay implications because in his mind, the only gameplay implication should be skill. Or I should say the vast majority should be skill. They don't like the idea of the kind of "sim"/"roleplay" aspects of having components and ships dictating large percentages of the effectiveness to combat. I'm at the point where I'm like, CIG just make the hammerhead have like 10k hp regen on the shields or make anything under size 4s not even damage the ship and other ships like it. Then ships that should have a purpose but don't could actually serve their purpose. Bring the right ship for the right job, not just an ace pilot in an aurora. Because just like in the new crappy star wars films... thats fricken stupid. Maybe while the ace pilot is taking out a capital ship in his interceptor, he can crack a mom joke over prox coms. When a hammerhead pops in, all the light fighters should scatter like roaches. It'd be fun for once to have useful multicrew and multirole ships.

[@trullin9326]

"It's fun to be challenged" - This is something we should be chanting on every CIG feedback channel we have available to us. CIG need to hear those words. I don't play combat gameplay at all, and I totally agree with the vast majority of what they're saying. Yes it's a game, but that doesn't mean it should be easy.

[@FunkThompson]

Accessible, not easy, would be my preference. Easy to learn the basics, but a lifetime to master.

[@dex6147]

I don't do fps combat because shooting targets that don't move isn't fun.

[@leoncantwelliii7946]

Tomato you should really try to get somebody on your show who represents the other side of this argument over mastermodes as well.

[@Shakalakahiki8]

Yeah I agree. It feels to me like the naysayers are actually a very vocal minority. We should give more of a platform to people like Ver9jl.

[@forcommenting1017]

This is not a forum for dissent it is a platform for people for those who love the game. Bringing in a different perspective causes a conflict that tomato would get put right in the middle of.

[@moondogg_monte]

What is the other side of this argument?..

[@Shakalakahiki8]

@gg_monte someone who actually enjoys Master Modes and thinks it's good for the game.

[@RYCOPZ]

This worries me because the flight model was one of the things that made me fall in love with the game. I loved that it was extremely tough at first, but rewarding once you figured it out. To me it's no big deal that I'm not a top percentile combat pilot or racer after 2 years of playing - why should I be? That's not my main focus. I'm still having fun just improving as I go. I'm pretty sure that a lot of peeps prefer the SIM direction over an EZ arcade style experience.

[@Jeremy_Walker]

Same here. I like flying it’s fun. MM doesn’t really feel like flying to me.

[@CitizenScott]

I feel this 100% personally. Starting from 0 and working until I can hang with the best has been one of the most rewarding gaming experiences I've had, and I'm a single player RPG guy who doesn't play PvP games at all. That said, most people just are not this way. A huge issue in the current playerbase is that so many get discouraged and turned off by the learning curve so they give up trying, and that's only going to increase with more new players going forward. Its a bummer some people wont get the experience you and I had, but its net positive that way more ppl will likely stick with it and actually participate in space combat, even if it's only PvE.

[@Azariel-Horfald]

"we go to the moon not because it's easy but because it's hard " , I played and loved Hollow knight because it's difficult , but I pushed through and became good , still I am nowhere near these inhuman world record speedrunner , and hitless challenges , but I love that , because it's so badass and cool to have people that can attain such height in their skills , , I strive for the same in SC I wanna be good in stuff I think are cool and challenging and I am not threatened but inspired and respectful of people better than me !

[@vontak59]

Exactly. And if we had that with ship combat at least . Star citizen will be THAT game.

[@_SPKer]

I honestly think somethings about Master Modes are great, such as weapon ranges, weapon spread, thrust/vector changes (tri-chord nerfs), as well as the various gunnery and UI changes. But I can't help but feel a LOT of these changes would actually do well in the current flight model via providing turrets and larger ships more range authority, and forcing smaller fighters to close distance to maximize dps - I also don't understand why they aren't utilizing the power triangle to commit player positions and decision, rather than implement a magical physics barrier ie. speed limitation. eg. Why doesn't power to weapons, shields, engines trade off things like damage output, RPM/DPS, shield HP, and acceleration - Forcing players to choose between mobility, dps, and HP alongside the added pressure of MM implementations like weapon range-spread, and simply allow weapon sizes to dictate range favoring larger vessels, and forcing fighters to coordinate closer strikes to disable weaponry - instead, as mentioned now things are happening even further away, and will soon be even more effective given "precision targeting"

[@grygaming5519]

That can be due to missing systems in the game itself Engineering is a big one and weapon tuning would also be the next one as well. The grade system for gear is also....lackluster. You would think having a Grade A cooler and Power plant means more power to augment your systems. Instead a Grade C power plant is nearly equal to grade A on a fighter. Instead the Grade A should be adding more power by giving a bonus around 10-15% that buffs everything else. Its nearly the same crap they pulled with energy weapons, adding a capacitor as a means to limit DPS along with halving kinetic rounds ammo to again limit DPS. I'm hoping once Armor and Engineering is added into the game, they go back and look evaluate these things. Everything just feels like a stop gap.

[@samrye8342]

Power triangle modified attributes would be a great simple way to vary performance for a given situation. Need to run, power to thrusters, need to pen medium shields, lower speed or shield recharge. Make components matter it's numbers on a spreadsheet what's the issue.

[@ThaFiggyPudding]

THIS! Why not just tie max speed to the engines in the power triangle? You would lower average combat speeds and give people agency to decide on the balance between shields/weapons/speed. And the change would be easy to tweak and quick to implement. MM seems insane. They're trashing years of work and going back to 0.

[@briangueringer3673]

I think one of the biggest problems is this notion CIG keeps putting forward is "cinematic combat". I am dreading this zoom mode stuff. Its a really pretty space game already and fighting bigger ships is as cinematic as its going to get and thats fine. Smaller ships should be more of a sweaty and by the second. In the regard of small fighters being the meta all they have to do is tier armor categories. So size ships 1 through 6 lets say. So a tier 1 weapon does 100% damage to a tier 1 ship. Then subtract 20% damage for each tier difference. Then when you hit tier 6 vs thier 1 it does 0 hull damage and let them do 20%of their damage to ship component's. Then they can participate in large ship battles but cant take down a ship of a certain size. Avenger One is absolutely right about one thing in-particular. They need to nail this before Squadron 42 because they will absolutely double down and it wont change. There is no need to make the game overly arcadey.....

[@vontak59]

Facts

[@vontak59]

Lower the skill ceiling slightly but not that much , if at all... and make MM ONLY for shooting components. Nothing more. Don't even have to zoom. I lock on target and can select component with ship screen in cockpit and try to hit my shots .Keep high speeds and fix boost .

[@nekomancer4641]

Yeah I'm so fucking afraid of the game turns out to be like Star Wars space battle/ Hollywood WW2 dogfights. That's gonna be so boring and shallow

[@briangueringer3673]

@nekomancer4641 Yeah cinematic combat is what happens when you have capital class ships fighting. That scenario already slows down combat in a natural way. The dude making bombing runs in a fighter should have a tight asshole lol. They keep fucking around and they gonna make Elite Dangerous 2. As much as I did love that game it wasn't Elite and it wasn't Dangerous lol.

[@Paceytron]

Commenting at 34:00, because what Splen is mentioning regarding how MM affects racing might give us some insight into how MM may eventually look after some refinement. I don’t believe racers are going to be stuck to the same SCM speeds as what the current Merlin is set to. But then how do racers keep their speeds? I personally think component choice is going to play a much larger factor, than it already is, going forward. I suspect PVPers may find themselves asking the question, do I want equip a more racing oriented engine but sacrifice on shields to get a higher SCM speed (without using boosters) or do I want to double down on shields and effectively and reduce power elsewhere to ensure I can take a bigger hit. This would also help to answer the question regarding non-PVP ships (aka Haulers) and how they can escape these fighter oriented ships. Say you strip off the weapons from your hauler, and have a bigger window in power capacity, this keeps your shields active while your QT charges but maybe your QT charges slower (because I see the QT being a power hog). On the flip side of this same scenario, fighters will need to focus fire on precise shots to the QT Drive in order to successfully pirate. I get all this may be dipping into theory crafting and we can only go from what CIG have said, but complaining about MM before we’ve seen the finished picture feels like wasted energy. Just let CIG cook

[@TechNaOkami]

So far for .23 they want MM in it with all 200+ ships. so EVO will have time with it and the very least everyone else once it hits PTU. and CIG has been very vocal about community feedback on it. so were gonna get some time to play with it.

[@asog88]

Why don’t racers use nav mode?

[@vontak59]

In truth he speaks for alot of us who actually want a game where skill and growth is still apart of a game and help makes it fun.

[@chrisd502]

i agree skill should play a part in combat however combat should be approachable to newer players instead of how it is now, master modes isn't the fix for it but its a start to it for the newer and more casual players and cig have said the recognize the problems and plan to fix them to maintain a low skill floor and high skill ceiling

[@vontak59]

@@chrisd502 I agree. They just have to be carefull tho.. making it to easy JUST for new players could be a problem I personally like the concept of what they are doing and if speeds was tweak to maybe 600 combat and 1200 or so for nav. It might not be so bad. Definitely would stop the stand still aim and shoot battles. But it could be the flight . Have not seen anyone flight a spiral formation and not just cockpit camera view. I'm excited to see what they decide to do.

[@GerboTheGnomeSC]

I will always advocate for a high skill ceiling in games that I love and want to last a long time. It's okay to raise the skill floor as long as it doesn't rub against the skill ceiling. For me, it makes me want to move to just play other games.

[@BobWobbles]

Yep. Low skill ceiling = low boredom threshold.

[@freelancerthe2561]

@@BobWobbles The comparison to Starfield made the entire discourse click in my head. Now it makes sense. And now I'm wondering how this is getting pushed so hard on the Dev side.

[@nanmwahrki1263]

I agree with Avenger One's thoughts that master mode is too much of a nerf and that the SCM speed should be increased. But, like Splen and Tomato said, this game is not only a game for flying small fighters or fast racing ships, but it is a game for FPS combat, exploration, mining, salvage, cargo, trading, (eventually homesteading, base building, farming, etc). Sure flying is a fundamental part of SC, but it should not be the end all be all. I do want a high skill ceiling in order to allow players to enjoy improving in their capacity to play, but that should not harm the new player experience nor the gameplay of other ship types. Also, learning how to fly efficiently and survive against normal dogfights should not require 1000s of hours in Avenger One's flight school.

[@Rat-Catcher.]

SCM speeds should not be increased. SCM speeds will not be increased. CIG have made this very clear.

[@ZurakciEntertainment]

Biggest problem isn't that master modes is slowing things down, but that CIG took away range of engaging the enemy. A Hammerhead has the same range as a gladius in combat, which is fucking stupid cause the Hammerhead is a anti-fighter corvette. Before it could shoot up to 4km away, and now it's 1.4km, same as all fighters. Everything with the high speeds and such has made the game into a jouste and speed 30km away, let shields recharge, and go back. Its just a game of harassment.

[@scoobe8726]

I was a Hornet pilot ands its three years of flight school, two for Air Force. After that it's getting better through repetition. I've said this in the forums and I'll say it here. A1 is talking about the need for speed. I disagree with that solution but agree with the complaint. Yaw and pitch rate need to be reduced imo and tied to engine power. More engine power, more thruster power, more pitch and yaw rate.

[@nekomancer4641]

I feel like that discussion should separate atmo fights & space fights. In atmo ship should behave more akin to traditional aeroplanes as they are subjected to aerodynamics, where you trade energy for angular change + the little help thrust vectoring can help with the various assist thrusters. In space there's no air. Would also be neat to separate atmo meta & space meta

[@MersageSW]

This is what I think, and would like A1's take on it. I wish Space Tomato would have asked this specific question.

[@mattnash3873]

Love the points, but there was a slightly uncomfortable vibe to this particular video...

[@Vahris0]

I think that just comes with the territory of trying to understand one another's perspectives

[@PaulMEdwards]

​@@Vahris0I really didn't see A1 trying to understand other perspectives. It's understandable though since he has put a tremendous amount of effort into mastering (pun intended) the current fight model, even to the point of making a profitable business out of it.

[@Vahris0]

@@PaulMEdwards the video literally is about their perspectives though, ofc they are going to try to get out as much info because the community severely lacks the understanding of the old and new flight model. And even though I disagree with A1 on many aspects and how he delivers most of his takes he isn’t wrong at all and I think based on his recent video he put out he definitely just wants more of a dialogue between the devs and the player base so that things can be adjusted more before they just deliver just anything to create a better game for all us. If you think about most of the takes from the other side they primarily have to do with dismissing the old flight model because of a couple of things which could have been easily adjusted without changing everything like power management wasn’t a problem before but now it’s completely revamped. It just doesn’t feel like CIG knows when to stop trying to fix things.

[@rafaelgrb19]

uncomfortable vibe? what a soft guy.

[@mattnash3873]

@@rafaelgrb19 ok

[@duvels]

MM is in it's first iteration, the game is in alpha, i'm sure they'll take all feedback into consideration and tune it into something acceptable

[@Rummyson]

Agreed, MM will likely go through many iterations.

[@glichjthebicycle384]

This game is 10 years old at this point. They should not just now be figuring out the rough shape of what they want the flight model to look like.

[@Rummyson]

@glichjthebicycle384 except its not 10 years old. It hasnt released yet. 10 years ago they were doing engine work and building the company. 10 years ago, we didnt even have the hanger module

[@Accuracy158]

Yeah but they're acting like SCM speed isn't up for discussion. Hopefully this will change in the future but right now probably the most key variable isn't being tested.

[@samrye8342]

​@@Rummysonwe've been flying for a good many years and should be moved past this. We've had iterations, they seem to lose sight of the fundamentals, lack veteran pilots directing decisions. I'm still stuck on them not realizing a space ship will need to operate in high gravity with no atmosphere to provide lift. Way off track for long stretches and no one to set them straight.

[@darebmowe6765]

Hey I respect A1 but good lord I thought this was a space tomato, saltymike, and splen video for a bit. Also the aurora vs Gladius talk around the beginning just made me laugh. You don’t bring a minivan to fight a Hummer with an MG. Plus fighters and combat vehicles have always had classes and roles for them to stick in. Might as well complain that I can’t use an eclipse for dogfighting and it sucks because it’s only meant for bombing.

[@Liopleurodon]

tell that one to all the Toyota insurgents, lol! But you miss the point its not about that an Aurora shall be able to beat eveything, but everything in its same weight class (and Aurora IS a light fighter) if the pilot got the skill, while being NOT able to compete against everything else also works without putting every ship on a leash: we need actuall balancing - not Master Modes!

[@JagHiroshi]

55:00 Splen "Micro adjustments" ... yes, yes, yes!

[@surfimp]

Thanks for hosting this discussion. I think some good points were raised, and it'd be foolish to dismiss the statements of those who've spent many hours testing Master Modes and are deeply passionate about the game. I think the proof will be in the pudding once they hit the PU.

[@seanc6754]

I mean I get Avenger point I do but the only thing I would say is that the game is still in development right? I mean he's talking about 5-10 years down the road it seems at least he thinks this is permanent that it will never change yet the only thing constant in game development is change.. if it gets to a point where everybody's complaining about the flight model I'm sure they will change it.. we might have to deal with it for a while but it's not the end all be all

[@nekomancer4641]

SQ42 soonTM so what we get soon will be somewhat having a staying power

[@tlove21]

I think they are too worried about the first implementation. I would wait for 1 year of feedback to see what Master Modes become.

[@VFW-Mayer]

1. Remove Missile Mode Switching, Shoot a Missile by tapping middle mouse. 2. Make All Weapons Auto-Kill Missiles, 3.Add Short and Long Range Modes to Weapons. Long Range - Less Damage, more spam, Less Heat. Short - Higher Damage, High Heat, Must get CLOSE to the target. Fighters will need to switch to Short Range mode to even have a chance to effect larger ships shields. Able to fire a missile by simply tapping middle mouse, No need to switch to missiles now. If you are a fighter and Spam Long Range sustained fire on a Larger Ship, You will do nearly NO damage. Switch to Short Range, No More Spamming the Auto-Repeater, Overheats FAST. Now you can actually effect a larger shield. Fighter vs Fighter = Long range mode spam, Or Close Range Mode Burst Fire. When your shots hit, You can down an enemy fighters shield fast. Keep spamming your Long Range Sustained fire vs another Fighter, and you will need to hit them for 10 seconds before a shield goes down. So Long as I do not need a HOTAS to do it, I'm game.

[@megatrooper44]

The point of master modes is more to raise the skill floor and allow for a high skill ceiling at the same time. It also is meant to fix what CIG calls an exploit, which every combat pilot, myself included use regarding tri coord turns allowing for higher rates of speed and turning than the physics engine was meant to allow. The cone of fire thing I don't know how I feel about but it does solve the projectiles disappearing issue and some multi pip stuff without making ships capable of engaging from absurd distances.

[@simonbengtsson5841]

I don't understand the problem with ship roles getting a bigger impact. Of course a Cessna wouldn't win over a f-16 or a Chevy van win over a Corvette, despite skill... Just because you can do that now doesn't mean it's worse with a new system.

[@SpaceTomatoToo]

Bigger impact is great, too outsized an impact can be bad in any direction, though.

[@Em.P14]

i got 2 hopes: 1. They give up on it 2. They make it good enough (cant see a way but suprise me plz if it has to (what it will))

[@ZipinS1]

23:00 good question on which other variables we can change. speed is relative, so would changing weapon velocities and cone diameter bring back similar dynamics, while retaining the closeness and pretty views of the ships?

[@chrispittom9169]

I feel like somewhere in between what we have now and what is coming could make it what we need. If combat remains around 400/500 with decent turn rates and good lateral movement out of atmosphere, that is a good start. To make things a little more challenging, smaller ships should not have gimbled weapons. The accuracy should be from moving the ship. Larger ships can then have gimbled weapons, but they should mount smaller weapons to compromise. Then, when they bring in the more advanced weapon/armour/shield setups, the balance can be more inherrant due to the role being .ore forced ( a light fighter won't be able to equip weapons large enough to threaten the larger ships, and while they will he able to harm heavy fighters, the light fighter will need to maneuver effectively not to be ruined by the heavier fire power, heavier armour and tougher shields (and turret) of the heavy fighter.

[@AW-po7jr]

To be very honest, very high speeds 700-1200 m/s are not applied a lot in dogfights. (Except chasing) The speeds are a lot slower, like mostly up maybe 500 m/s. So A1, suggestion is to basically to leave things how they were. (Ok he had some good suggestions to balance things)

[@CitizenScott]

SCM speed increase breaks what CIG explicitly wanted to fix. It aint happenin brotha.

[@Kevlar-78]

This is a great conversation. I’m not even a dog fighter but I understand all the points being made. At the end of the day- we all want balance. But not at the expense of skill based flight. I really think the armor needs to be implemented in order to really start balancing ? I have a feeling the flight model will continue to be iterated and changed.

[@First_Chapter]

There's a saying that when two people are in a relationship it's the one who cares least who holds the power. In the relationship between CIG and the longer-standing backer CIG is the one with the upper hand. Consider: if CIG annoys a backer who has made significant pledges over the years, what avenues does that backer have to reclaim their money readily in order to show discontent? And what does CIG lose if a backer who already has significant pledges committed simply walks, abandoning their pledges? CIG's attitude could well be that the longer-established backer was unlikely to introduce new money anyway, instead reallocating existing cash via the CCU process, so it's not a big loss. CIG is chasing new money which means attracting new people - and in high numbers - and this is driving changes in the game that fly in the face of the motives that prompted longer-standing backers to pledge.

[@digicyc]

So does this mean I'm just going to be ganked more often in my Mole or Vulture than I am currently? As an industrial based player I don't know how this will really effect me.

[@nekomancer4641]

Law & Order system will probably affect you more than combat specificities.

[@Haegemon]

Fighters have been nerfed but it made no sense an ace fighter pilot could cripple an anti-fighter corvete. .

[@Rum_Runner]

No one disagrees, it’s how you get there.

[@samrye8342]

Everyone agrees. The fix is shield power, give greater weapon power for larger power plants, cone fire to start. Maybe more. Lose broken aim assist and some jank.

[@nekomancer4641]

He's not saying he should either ?!

[@brandonerwin7031]

I think A1 is speaking to a system that isn't finished, in a way that implies a finished product. Good pilots who put the time in will always have an advantage. It feels like he's just upset that his talent gap isn't as wide as it was. He's also lying through his teeth. Saying that player input has ZERO effect. Anyone with a brain knows that's not true. It can't be true. It's an impossibility. And Splen is speaking in a similar fashion. It's almost as if he's never played a real racing game or doesn't understand how real life racing works. Vehicles are balanced in a way that regardless of make and manufacturer, all cars have relative parity with one another. Different tuning will give you advantages in certain areas. There's a reason, despite parity, that Max Verstappen is so good, and wins despite the even playing field. Yes.. larger ships should mostly hold the advantage. Why is this controversial for these guys? Of course they should hold the advantage. A1 especially comes off as feeling like he should be able to win the fight solo against an Idris, while he's in an Arrow. Let's let them tune the system. If it's too much now, and the community wants them to ease up on the restrictions, then they will. I've always thought that CIG should design their flight combat around ELITE dangerous. I like that system. This is not quite it.

[@JakoMacro]

All valid points, especially the fact that A1 is a doomsday cry baby. Throw me in a heavy fighter like the vanguard and him in an arrow with MM and I guarantee he will beat me, it’s not even close. There is still plenty expression of skill even at 250 speed. He wants it to stay at 900 so he can 1v9 a hammerhead and party because the game is ridiculously unbalanced and he’s abused it. An anti fighter platform of turrets should be able to kill 50 A1’s in mere minutes becuase that’s what it’s designed to do, not lose to a single A1 in an arrow.

[@LeandroMenaUgarte]

The main discussion here is what game SC is becoming. Everyone in the podcast agrees that its natural for the pilot skill ceiling to be reduced as other aspects of the design are introduced, the main point of contention is how much. We know CIG wants ship selection and the egineering skill to have a higher impact in balance. Nowadays SC is being promoted as a MMO with space combat, not a space combate sim, and makes sense to balance things out so the pilot skill has a lower impact in balance. CIG is scared to kill their babies. They try very hard not to go back on anything they've pitched since the original KS but in reality the game they are developing today is a completely different game and some things don't make sense or dont't fit in the current vision of the game. I argue the pro space combat SIM aspect of the game is one of those things. Whatever CR said in the original pitch is him thinking about a very different game.

[@JakoMacro]

All I know is that the hammerhead is supposed to move into a combat sphere and effectively obliterate any light or medium fighters within that sphere. That’s it’s role. It’s not an anti-capital ship, it’s not utility, repairs, cargo, or maneuverable fighter. It currently can’t do its job and CIG is moving things back into the direction that large scale battles will need. We don’t want 100 light fighters vs 100 light fighters. One hammerhead should effectively nullify 50+ light fighters or 20+ mediums, with heavy fighters or torpedo bombers being the hammerhead’s counterpart (hey look now heavy fighters and torpedos have a purpose too!) I love the idea of master modes, I just hope it’s implemented well. The game should be rock paper scissors of fleet composition instead of paper paper paper because rock could never hit paper and scissor is to unpractical.

[@Brian-us2xz]

Unpopular opinion here, I have been playing squadron battle pretty heavily during mm's release, I wouldn't bother with it before then because the light fighter meta / orbiting made it pretty pointless because you couldn't force the engagement. Before, you would see a light fighter eating everything without being in any real danger. Now, light fighters are still difficult to hit, but at least it requires commitment to an engagement. I think a lot of the choices are now more tactical. The push / pull being target selection when people go into furballs. Either way, as A1 has a vested financial interest in keeping things the way they are, he might be too tied into the current model. I think it is a good start, just needs a bit of rejigging.

[@roborobrobable]

CIG is finally going towards fleet based fighting instead of one-on-one dog fighting and that sounds awesome.

[@Jeremy_Walker]

Have you played it much?

[@JakoMacro]

@@TheNefariousFoxthe guy just stated that he is excited for the battles to be bigger and more inclusive of variety. Get your panties out of a bunch, sheesh 😂

[@Accuracy158]

Avenger says the part that struck me quite clearly the other day. They're giving us a speed that we roughly agree would be reasonable compromise and is necessary for reasonable PvP... But they're just giving it to us as a boost. Why would boost speeds be double non-boost speeds it seems crazy? ...It's because outside of boosting they are afraid to ever let your momentum over power what your maneuvering thrusters can handle. They don't want the player to worry about thruster control until they hit boost at that point the player knows they are going to overpower the ability of they maneuvering thruster to turn them around but then they'll automatically be reset back to "safe" point when the boost ends. If ever can't turn your ship towards your target effectively just let go of boost and the game will scrub you down to the speed you need. The difference is we want to find that maneuvering thruster speed or "safe spot" on our own. We want to have the extra element of skill or basically mini game of finding that point as we zoom in and out of it. It can be visualized like the end of a brake line in racing game as you enter a turn, or catching the perfect speed reload in Gears of War, so that we can maintain maximum speed while still hit the point that we can effectively turn the nose of the ship around. CIG doesn't want this extra "minigame" adding to the skill ceiling and doesn't really want new players to ever feel like they are losing control of they're light fighter so they automatically bring you back to that point without thruster management. That just so happens to basically line up with hard flying / stunt low flying on moons like Daymar for that very reason. (Obviously that's dependent or ship and atmosphere but it would be pretty odd how close they got to a generic number if it wasn't intentional). I'd kind of like to run this by some low-flyers who really have an idea of the ship limitations at given speeds just to see if makes any sense. But I definitely think they're afraid of letting us get to a point where maneuvering thrusters are largely overpowered by momentum. It's about feeling in control the whole time without really managing your velocity much (which is a huge factor in the current build of the game).

[@martinhirsch128]

Only halfway through the episode at this point, but so far it hasn't been brought up: Did anyone consider that MM is not being built with the PU in mind, but something that was required for SQ42 and now has to be made to work in the PU and the multiplayer environment as well?

[@justwords3882]

They have said that while they tune S42

[@TheNefariousFox]

I suspect this to be very likely.

[@Libertas_P77]

A1 sees this through a very specific lens as to what he wants the game to be, which is fine. Worth appreciating that though, because MM is to provide a very different combat experience that’s much less “fighter jets in atmosphere now” and more “Expanse in zero G space” with features like precision shots to disable and meaningfully allow boarding and combat on one another’s ships. No doubt first MM will be deeply flawed, but if it makes combat more consensual and makes griefing much harder, then it’s a good initial start. A high skill ceiling is very important, so they need to ensure a pilot in an Avenger Titan with higher skill can kill an average pilot in a Gladius for example.

[@AW-po7jr]

Yes, we need a good middle ground. Right now, if you exploit tricording, use bugged ships, weapons, pip wiggling like A1 does, you can fight a whole server of rookie pilots. That’s not good

[@ronja99]

Consensual combat is a ridiculous idea. Defenders deserve a chance to leave, but not a veto

[@Traumglanz]

"No doubt first MM will be deeply flawed, but if it makes combat more consensual and makes griefing much harder, then it’s a good initial start.", yeah about that. It does nothing of the sorts, it just makes grieving easier and encourages it more. And it's even worse, because it takes the ability to fight back against non-consensual pvp. You have the wrong ship? To bad, you lost no matter if you are as good as A1 or as bad as my 4 year old daughter. And don't get me wrong there are a few good things about master mode, there could be a middle ground, A1 is advocating for a middle-ground. So maybe you should support his take for your own sake.

[@CitizenScott]

Exactly. He's just like most SC players who shout their entitled opinions from the rooftops and kick and scream and cry every time anything doesn't go their way.

[@yous2244]

MM mode lowers the skillceiling immensely which in turn lowers the playability and lifespan of the game, after buying the best ship and reaching the very low skill ceiling what will you do? You now can't decide to do hours of practice towards fulfilling your childish dream of becoming the best pilot in the verse.

[@Zeonymous]

Poor SpaceTomato... He doesn't have a dog in this race, and it shows...

[@SpaceTomatoToo]

Combat is not my wheelhouse!

[@Zeonymous]

@@SpaceTomatoToo May it one day be within your expertise!

[@luke5g230]

Really great conversation and I really hope we don’t loose that top tier game play. It give people something to strive towards and like other professions to be the best of course you need to practice and put in the time and effort and that is what makes it rewarding and sets players apart. Why should I get to be as good as someone like A1 or splen when I don’t put in the time or effort I shouldn’t. That’s like saying I should be able to get in a racing car and be able to compete at the top level otherwise it’s unfair. We need the hi skill ceiling.

[@ArcaneDgR]

o7 ... What in Star Citizen is set in stone? Even when released, will the game then never change, never grow or evolve? Isn't it supposed to be the forever game? This is why we discuss and test and theory craft. It's why the community is important. IMO

[@EricMartindale]

tl;dr - something between the two can work! In any case, my suggestions... 1. Increase all interceptor, snub, and light fighter combat speeds to ~600 m/s at the cost of power to other systems (shields, weapons) 2. Keep frigate and capital combat speeds as they are [in mastermodes], but add logarithmic scaling to velocity when applying to collision damage (after all, surely we have non-newtonian armors by now?) 3. Increase boost durations all around; consider contemporary rockets with specific impulses of 100-300 seconds! 4. Increase hull HP across the board, by a factor of 2 or more (increase those TTKs and encourage subsystem targeting!) The Idris should be able to spend a _ton_ of fuel to burn for 300 seconds up and out of atmosphere... all the while flaring in signature, especially infrared, making the engines easy targets for faster, more maneuverable fighters. Snubs, DRONES, and light fighters ought to scare off any persistent assault, leading to both a high skill ceiling for dogfighters, and a long, protracted battle for a risky whale of a haul. If I've brought a tackler, then I should be fending off the coordination of a fighter squadron to disable my interdiction capabilities, steadily using my S-turns to evade their *slightly* more maneuverable attacks. If they can coordinate, they can win! If not, then it's down to my piloting skills and wingmates. Heavier fighters might do more damage and even ensure a grounding, but they suffer the penalty of being unable to escape a persistent swarm of smaller fighters... whereas cruisers and other mid-range ships should serve support roles, using their longer-range scanners, remote repairs and capacitor transfers, and other specialized capacities like interdiction, EWAR, and hacking. Altogether, this would help steer the game towards a fun and enjoyable experience for the casual players, giving them meaningful impact in even the most extreme of numbers games by prolonging combat and providing further opportunity for respawns, while still serving the wide variety of specialized roles required for high-level competitive play by centering around tactics, strategy, and skill for the higher value, higher risk battlefield assets.

[@mtojebogi]

The original ship tutorial was amazing... it isolated the player and step through how to fly.. I wish they kept it and keep updating it.

[@First_Chapter]

CIG seems to want WW2-style aerial combat for SC and seems to equate this with slow speeds. But aerial combat was the way it was back in WW2 not just because aircraft were slower that in later decades. It was how it was because: flight happened in atmosphere subject to aerodynamics and air density/pressure/temperature and gravity; piston engines were the predominant technology; and thrust-to-weight ratios were below unity even when those engines were performing at their max. So, how does CIG ever expect to capture that WW2 feel with powerful vector-thrust craft moving in space...? Is that not simply trying to square a circle?

[@Rat-Catcher.]

6:36 "I'm at a crossroads with the game and with MY CAREER." This is this guy's true motivation, his career. Master Modes strips him and his little crew of their cheesy Light Fighter meta. He's no longer able to go around freely clubbing groups of baby seals and exploiting broken game mechanics, and this makes the verse very dangerous for him. He knows that this actually balances gameplay, and that's good for the game, but bad for his business. Transparent bias. Shameful.

[@flockofwildcactus]

Exactly. Don't see this as a defense, as he's literally indefensible in so many ways, but I respect the general concept of content creators' careers and I don't think that's where we should be critical. If your content revolves around being toxic and exploiting very specific unbalanced elements in an alpha-stage game and you're at a crossroads because they have the audacity to CONTINUE TO DEVELOP THE ALPHA, providing changes based on feedback from the entire community while making internal decisions for additional features and balance, maybe you should re-evaluate your content or your creative abilities if you can't adapt to something you should know already? I've heard he apparently sells 'git gud' training guides, so that aspect of 'career' I think is the gross part because the devs are constantly informing us we're pledging to support development and things can and will change constantly. Now that seems like a grift and is worthy of criticism. There are so many better voices and opinions in the SC PVP sphere...

[@Liopleurodon]

@@flockofwildcactusguess you both didnt continue watching after that mark, because they both state multiple times that MMs dont change anything about the general meta... just the speed that meta is played with. MMs dont change anything about the balance either, right now they're just there, putting everyone on a leash, while actuall balance mechanics are still far away... sure some people like being on a leash - but that are different "games".

[@Rat-Catcher.]

@@Liopleurodon They never said that at all. And that's not true at all. They both say the opposite, and the opposite is true. Light Fighters are no longer the meta. That is why this guy is so mad. You should maybe listen to what people say not just hear what you want, and maybe pay attention to objective reality not just pretend it is what you want. Weird comment.

[@Liopleurodon]

@@Rat-Catcher.preach to yourself man... and then a) play MMs, b) go to spectrum and read the feedbacks and c) watch the videos there if playing MMs didnt show that already: LFs are still the meta (and in 22.0 it were heavies.. why is that better)... one LF still dominates even a fully crewed HH. MMs are a shallow annoyance that has no use, but to restrain people... and when actuall balance mechanis come into the game they will pop like a baloon.

[@Rat-Catcher.]

@@Liopleurodon Yeah. Right. LF meta is alive and well. That's why all the LF cheeselords are crying like babies while everyone else is happy with MM. You're so right. It's so obvious. I must be insane. /s in case you're actually as dense as you seem. I have played MM. It's a huge improvement. CIG agrees. Git gud.

[@forcommenting1017]

I think a lot of people forget that Stanton isnt the only system in the world. If you want to avoid A1s stay in Terra. Yet the longer you play the game the more you will want a challenge so many will naturally migrate to those tougher systems. The important thing is that the players go in with the understanding that where they are is risky.

[@SpaceTomatoToo]

System security will for sure make a big difference.

[@houstonaut6940]

"Apples to Oranges"- WHY CAN"T FRUIT BE COMPARED! lol On a serious note, I'm with A-One on this. Keep the skill ceiling high, but give the shields and weapons deeper workovers.

[@seekerhooligan781]

Great show Tomato. 16:05-18:22 says it all. Valuable information. Av1 and Splen really were informative. Thanks to them. DAPS to Splen for all things Splen, and offering a clearly different perspective, ( racing is awesome ), also affected badly by the overall problem aparant with MMs. If it's the PU or Arena Commander, it's the old "GT Mitsubishi GTO syndrome ". Players not willing to put in the time need to imagine what it looks like when every pod racer at the gate is the Anikan special, so nobody has to put in the time.. wasn't SC always supposed to be a forever game? Like Av said, how does that work for Splen when it's just the ship? His whole strategy he explained, he would never be able to do, and neither can anyone else.. when everyone is special, nobody is, right? Wasn't that the hopes of a Villain? lol

[@Garpernaut]

I don't doubt A1's experience and the stuff he said about speed equaling controlling the engagement rings true, but... He is so sure of his opinion as being fact, to the point that he was being super dismissive of other perspectives even when they were raised as hypotheticals. I listened to half of this before giving up, because he was at all times controlling the conversation and mostly just ranting...

[@Rgraceful1]

When I see A1 I shut it off no halfway for me .

[@kevinm3751]

If thats all you got out of it then you are totally missing the point he was making!

[@kevinm3751]

@@Sennif383Fun? Yea and that will last you about a month and then you will get bored with it and go play something else! A1 is not arguing the game being fun, he is arguing for making it competitive. If your idea of fun is standing still and shooting the pretty ships moving around you and you as well as them dying faster then it takes to log into the game, then you are in the right place but if you want the challenge of having to learn skills to be better then as I said your fun will be short lived because instant gratification in all of human history has ended in total boredom!

[@Sylar0n]

@@Sennif383 No, A1` correctly understands that there needs to be a compromise. The only thing he is holding onto is that light fighters should be able to dogfight and their relevance in a fleet battle should be preserved. He made some really nice suggestions on how to make the gameplay better for larger ships. Like turret projectile faster, larger cone, fighters cannot destroy larger ships by kamikaze runs etc. And if you dont like high speed stuff, well, dont fly those ships, simple as that.

[@flockofwildcactus]

It's kinda disturbing he keeps getting platformed, especially here...there are much better PVP opinions to be heard.

[@gizmo104drives7]

Still have never played star citizen but i really enjoy hearing you guys talking about it.. one day il jump in and im routing for it to be an actually good / fun game to play

[@dicebar_]

Something that rubbed me the wrong way was that A1 was set on framing the reason for the flight model change as _intended_ to lower the skill cap. "To please people who haven't put the work in." I find that a toxic point of view, as I very much doubt many people would ascribe to that opinion. And with that, CIG doesn't have reason to either. So how did CIG end up with the master modes system as being tested now? Squadron 42. The system is cinematic, makes team fights apparently really cool. It makes it easier to fly in formation. In other words, it was made for a single player experience. And I imagine it works great there. For internal testing, the model would've gotten 5 star reviews, because it _does_ make the skill ceiling easier to reach and will make more people feel like a complete badass while playing the campaign. There likely were internal signals that the system isn't good for 1v1 (yet) - which they themselves admitted in their video - but the focus was on Squadron, and for that game the model works just fine. Now they need to fix the model to raise the skill ceiling for multiplayer.

[@flockofwildcactus]

He is a toxic person on record, and we really don't need to hear his perspective on anything due to that alone. I agree with your assessment though, it's clearly meant for the Squadron 42 experience and it makes sense they'd implement it into their alpha test bed to get feedback before they release the campaign. I'd expect it to evolve further for SC as that continues to develop, but I think people loose sight of the fact the game is...in continual development...even those that 'put the work in'.

[@Liopleurodon]

I dont know where this assuption comes from that MMs make team fight and formations easier or more likely... I had team flight and formation (no fight though) in Live with the right people... I haven't got any team fight or formation flight with randoms in MM tests... its about the people you put together and coordinating them, it doesnt matter if you do that at 1200m/s or 12.

[@jedi_drifter2988]

The Perseus is looking better and better as time goes on ... There is a reason it cost a bit more than was expected.

[@CitizenScott]

58:35 Controller input has several severe disadvantages in the old model. MM fixes most of the worst of them and makes the game more input agnostic generally. A fact conveniently ignored here.

[@ronja99]

Absurd argument. They specifically address it, both A1 and your boy Splen. Can't make it completely control scheme agnostic, and if one chooses to nerf themselves by playing controller having only a few buttons and no range of throw, that's their problem. Should SC be balanced for mobile players? Guitar hero guitars? Sketch pads? Guy, your arguments are trash

[@sorincaladera936]

​@@ronja99why are you against that? I'd love to place SC on a full Rockband setup

[@CitizenScott]

@@ronja99 "Absurd argument." Says the guy not even making an argument... L "They specifically address it..." They specifically don't, only mentioning M/KB... L "Can't make it completely control scheme agnostic..." Finally you say something slightly true... but you CAN make it MORE agnostic, which MM objectively has, so... L "... if one chooses to nerf themselves by playing controller having only a few buttons and no range of throw, that's their problem." Many CIG devs have said they use controllers, including CR himself... L "Guy, your arguments are trash" Ok, guy. The input in SC is full throw X-Y in a square pattern which matches 1:1 with flight sticks, but controllers use circular outputs. This leads to far less granularity in 45 degree ranges on controller, i.e. objective disadvantage, and essentially an incompatibility between the input-output shape pairing. The removal of additive 45s from the flight model basically fixes this situation, as now circular inputs feel much more intuitive and natural, while flight sticks actually receive more granularity in 45 degree ranges which is objectively not a disadvantage. It's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact. Simple geometry... L All that said, I'm happy to teach you a lesson anytime in Live with my C8X and Xbox controller, and add one more L to your list.

[@ronja99]

@@CitizenScott I'm down. We can have a duel

[@reginadea2821]

Sabine Schmitz, then Rob Austin, took a van around the Nurburgring and beat out Average Joes in production cars. Their times are still beaten by Average Joes in cars built specifically to set lap times, and a full twice that of the records set by their peers in speedy cars. It doesn't make Sabine's and Rob's accomplishments less impressive, though. Avenger doesn't have to beat people in Gladiuses to get his ego trip. The fact that he can last X minutes is impressive in itself. Wanting a flight model that allows the metaphorical vans to beat the metaphorical race cars is incredibly silly, regardless of the pilot, and unnecessary to boot.

[@CitizenScott]

19:40 This is not a solution, and anyone serious knows that. Raising SCM speeds just brings back many of the very problems that CIG explicitly stated they wanted to fix with MMs. It would drastically alter the combat geometry that CIG have again explicitly stated they want to introduce with MMs. It would benefit skilled pilots by raising the ceiling, but also drop the floor out from under less skilled players, which once again CIG have explicitly stated was a problem that MMs fixes for them. Easy to approach, difficult to master. That is the goal. This is why CIG need to boost boost. Leave the SCM speeds where they are, and uncap the boost top speed to match NAV mode top speed. This gives back the agility that we're missing, opens up exponentially more options during combat, and makes every fight far more dynamic, from duels to fleet battles. It raises the skill ceiling the right way, using a limited resource that's intuitive and accessible, and keeps the skill floor where it is. The rock-paper-scissors aspect that Splen outlines comes back, and the top tier combat encounters become chess matches. Everybody wins. Boost boost.

[@interstellarspacesolutions]

I am with you Avenger 1, I think you have nailed it!

[@Trillineatus]

Great video spacetomato.as veteran player i cannot say i am on the same combat lvl as av1. I do get the frustration he has about it. The skill lvl ceiling should not be touched in any way. Ppl who play more should get rewarded more, period. If he says he is Already bored after 50h. They should not get this through. I dont mine, salvage because it is boring after 2hours. You can be a pro miner after just a couple hours in. I hope they keep things interesting also after many hours in. There is tottally no challenge in these things. Also if they say no to feedback right away there is also no point in testing it. Just like splen says its so easy to tweak some settings but no they have to make it overcomplicated with these master modes. It just dont feel right...

[@warren3174]

Love your content. Hope you're doing well.

[@SpaceTomatoToo]

Thank you

[@dantheman2237]

Splen makes a good point around 44:20. The role fighters play in larger fleet battles seems... undefined.

[@malismo]

Splen said the truest and only important thing: I can't pass judgement until all systems are in place. The reason for that statement being: There is a vision which is being realized and in the process of realizing it things will change to fit that vision. If it turns out MM does not work towards realizing the vision, CIG will change it or replace it by the next flight system as they have done in the past. They will do and have done this for all systems. Avenger One: At most you are the one scamming yourself of your time by spending so much time training a skill in a "game" which will continue to change to become the actual game Chris wants it to be.

[@latjolajban81]

Thing is SQ42 is being finalized, and I doubt the flight system will change from SQ42 to the PU. So I beleive once SQ42 is done, the flight model won't change anymore.

[@justalex4214]

​@@latjolajban81 but sq42 is a single player game, there's nothing tying SC to whatever they do there beyond "oh look, the ship flies the same way in Sq42, nice". And even within sq42 the combat system can and most likely will evolve with subsequent entries into the franchise. Well that is if it's successful enough to spawn sequels, if not it's even less likely SC will be bound to what we will have in sq42.

[@latjolajban81]

@@justalex4214 They both exist in the same universe. Would be weird to have 2 different flight models in the same universe. And they are tied because you can earn your citizenship in SC by playing SQ42, and get the possibility to buy the F8C and so on. So they aren't totally separate.

[@justalex4214]

@@latjolajban81 they shre the same lore and universe but it makes no sense to balance a pvpve mmo with the system of a single player game in the long term. I am pretty sure that they can and will adjust ship combat if MM does not hold up in the long term.

[@latjolajban81]

@@justalex4214 I guess we simply have to disagree. To me it makes even less sense to have 2 different flight models. You play SQ42 and your gladius flies in a certain way. Then you enter the PU and your Gladius suddenly flies in a totally different way. I just don't see that happening. The two games uses the same systems. That's the whole point of the the "parallell" development.

[@StarshipCaptainNemo]

Ok, here is my opinion: I have bigger ships, but I don't want the game to be "Pay to Win". I want the game to be "Pay to be able to choose between chillout or challenge" I want to be able to shrug off attackers and retreat and not be bothered again, and other times I want to decide to take the risk and engage in combat and want to have a real challenge against player skills, not against Excel sheets. I want to be able to decide when I want to be challenged and when I want the game to be my quiet retreat. How that will work in the future I don't know, but currently there are not enough possibilities to retreat and pursue non combat gameplay. I am still waiting for the Exploration and Luxury/VIP content and the Terra system.

[@JagHiroshi]

I think what's happening is that CIG have made a commercial decision to simplify flight, knowing full well that people who like high skill gaming are going to be sacrificed. If true, it will be interesting to see how this plays out long term.

[@kevinm3751]

Yes and they will end up like every other MMO game where the players with the attention span of a goat leave in 6 months (if that) and they are done! Makes ZERO sense catering to the half wit that wants instant gratification and sacrificing the dedicated players that want to put the time into the game to learn and get better and who will be playing the game until the day they die! Piss poor business model if you ask me!

[@yous2244]

This is literally an MMO, lowering the skill cailing destroys the lifespan of the game

[@TheNefariousFox]

@@yous2244, Correct!

[@SnowTerebi]

So in the Kickstarter campaign they mentioned mod support, but I think we all know that it probably won't happen to the PU anymore. But maybe it's possible to let hardcore pvp players tweak the numbers in AC? So they can play at whatever difficulty they want, meanwhile everyone in PU can have a more casual combat experience, because not every SC players want combat.

[@Sylar0n]

"not every SC players want combat" - Are you sure you are playing the right game? There will be combat even in the neutered master modes. Except instead of a light fighter or two, youll face blobs of F8s and Hornets. I can recommend you Elite Dangerous, theres no combat there.

[@SnowTerebi]

@@Sylar0n Oh I am very sure not every SC players want combat. Otherwise people won't asking for cargo hauling, salvaging, racing, exploration, etc.

[@validusskywyrd]

This video was very informative for me, personally. I really appreciate the dialogue and the opinions mentioned. Thank you for setting up this discussion with the guests. 1:05:15 I don’t have fast reaction times, or can generate high apm. Never going to be a pro gamer. BUT if I don’t get challenged in a game, I don’t play it. If Star Citizen loses too much skill ceiling, its longevity will suffer as even casual players grow bored.

[@Damiv]

Logistical and strategic skill should also matter. A1 in particular seems to only care about expresions of tactical skill. His hauling example, he talks about tricky flying and difficult docking manuvers as what should be an expression of a haulers skill. I highly disagree, and I have no interest in those things as a hauler. I want route planning, cargo selection, load balancing, etc to be the expressions of my skill.

[@NotYetForsaken]

This was such a hilarious moment from A1. It showed how out of touch he was from the non-combat community. I sure do love doing 155MPH and doing hairpin turns to spin into the cargo terminal when I play American Truck Simulator.

[@Damiv]

@@NotYetForsaken Yep. He's clearly an adrenaline junkey, which is fine more power to him. But he doesn't seem to understand that there are many players who can enjoy a game without sweating at the edge of failure constantly.

[@androssthered1157]

But we can do these things with the tunings he wants in MM or in live right now? Is he an adrenaline junkie and speak from that POV? Yeah, but it doesn't adversely affect hauling...

[@Damiv]

@@androssthered1157 His suggestions for how to make hauling more skill based would adversely affect hauling and completely ignore the reasons people haul.

[@androssthered1157]

@Damiv to make money? Tbh, if a group interdicts a hauler its over no matter what unless it has cover of some kind.

[@ArterialCanine]

I think people all agree that testing and feedback is where they are at, sometimes the community forgets this. Never has CIG said this is what you’re going to get take it or leave it. It’s wrong for any one group of a single mind set to have it their way. The game, nor any game for that matter will be all things to all players. Regardless of where it ends up it will not suit everyone it’s simply not possible. Getting exposure and listening is the key. Avenger will have to accept that the game is not going to be customised to just PVP’ers nor just to Racers but a balance.

[@XMathiasxX]

So the people that you see doing insane maneuvers that are in the same ship as you, and you think it looks impossible, are cheesing the system. Its like the double shot from halo 2 back in the day. It takes some skill, but wasnt meant to be a thing. Im fine with direction they are going. They want you to do around the amount of damage your ship should be able to do, with a competent pilot. The game has millions of players. Your insane moves wont help a ton if you have 30 ships in the areas shooting at ya. Its about coordination and skill. Avnger_One is upset, which is natural, because hes used to something that he is good at. That doesnt mean they need to make the game to cater to his desire to stay as relevant as he thinks he should be. This is a bit of preemptive fit throwing, they have all the time in the world to balance everything out. The idea that 10 people cant beat 1 really good player is so dumb lol. That shouldnt be a thing, unless you spend time learning all the cheese. If you dont like that they want to remove unintended mechanics, and you dont like the game anymore, dont play it. Millions of others still will.

[@TerkanTyr]

If they just go forward with this. If it stays worse, lacking to the point of missing what we had. I will also feel angry and betrayed.

[@DennisSheltonjr]

Infinity battle space or battle scape, is a perfect example of mixed class vessels engaged in combat. The fighter screens are used to fight the other fighters stop the bombers and torpedoes and other objects in the game. Not necessarily to attack the larger ships if anything they help provide a nuisance to the larger ship so that the bombers can get to them. A good example to look at would be the capital fight ships or, in Battlestar Galactica the last reboot. Because the capital ships need to fighters not only to fight each other and dwindle their numbers but to take out the missiles and the torpedoes and all the other things. CIG just needs to talk to other players like avenger 1 and pay attention to these simple examples. Even the expanse

[@TruthIsKey369]

I don't play Starcitizen much, BUT I understand the skill aspect due to my time with CSGO, and how easy it is to get into, but very hard to master. THAT should be a thing in Starcitizen too in many aspects, and for me I hope the first person shooter aspect gets a little tighter and more responsive. So I truly get what AvengerOne is saying, but do the average player get it? If you never played competitive gaming then I understand your view, but nerfing a game so much, just to meet the expectations of noobs, or the ultimate casual player, is in my eyes very bad imho. CIG needs to hone in the skill aspect side of things, otherwise like AvngerOne says, it will be dead in 5 years after launch. There is a reason why CSGO and other games still live on, the challenge to become the best, and ofc to be a competent player where you become good, which will bring you back. It is a good feeling to somewhat master a game, where it gives you the andrenlin, and that makes you come back for more, and ofc it has to be fun ;)

[@SpaceTomatoToo]

The skill is important, it needs to be easy to pick up but there's gotta be room to grow

[@revengexmoon2087]

Anyone remember hover mode? That died when the player base rejected it. MM may be the same..

[@nekokatti]

They have to slow ships down for server meshing to work :P

[@BobWobbles]

There's probably something to that.

[@Jeremy_Walker]

That’s one of the big ones. I don’t think the servers can handle the speeds.

[@TheNefariousFox]

Duh! And yet, that has nothing to do with ANY of the criticisms of MM. But you low information commenter has NEVER spent any time trying to understand any of it. So you spew garbage instead. Do better!!!

[@BigGomer]

When you move at such insanely high speeds the server has trouble figuring out if a bullet should hit your or not since every tick of the server you jump 1000s of meters every second. It should help with hit reg and desync

[@Sny-]

I see this debate as "I want to be *the* hero that wins" vs "I want my team to win". The system is less of an issue. The tuning is going to make all the difference in how much skill it takes to overcome a ship's limitations or deficit vs an opponent. A little fighter shouldn't have much chance against something designed as anti-fighter... If it does, then the manufacturer should have never designated it as an anti-fighter platform.

[@TheNefariousFox]

Nope, you just ignored all of the criticisms of the entire flight model discussion. Try again.

[@vontak59]

The best guest you ever had on the show , in my opinion.

[@llillian4055]

"Physics is not a dirty word." CIG needs to remember where this all began. SC is a sim, not an arcade experience. They need to balance towards SIM, remove auto aim, and leave the arcade experience to Arena Commander. Does it need to be DCS? No. But it does need to reward pilot skill, and I do need to be allowed to use my ships as I wish - remember we were meant to be able to change the fit to change what they do. The answer is not hard: go back to the beginning. Make the game you pitched to us CIG. The best pilot should be best, and if you don't want to get wrecked you can fly in safe space until you get better.

[@Cetrakh]

Both A1 and Splen saying when you put a stock honda civic and a stock Lamborghini murcialago on a racetrack , skill should make the civic win. Not the care that's made for speed but that car that's made for a family of 4. Excellent logic. Imagine an F-16 loosing against a cesna. Pretty sure that if I went into combat against A1 with MM , he's going to win despite whatever ships we both use , the same goes for Splen with racing. They both need to understand that the people they encounter in their space aren't that bad of a players and they aren't gods at the game. There are a legion of players that are miles better than these 2 yet don't show themselves because they rather stay hidden. I know atleast 3 racers who place down better times than Splen but just don't care because they only care about the moment they have when they race Also , MM is far from done , bitching about it now is pointless

[@johnbraithwaite863]

What is a strawman?

[@SultanDesync]

Bitching about it now, is literally what they're asking us to do. You can't get into a master modes lobby without the message popping up about giving feedback. I don't care who you know who races fast or how humble they are. You're opinion is worth less than either of these guys because you demonstrate you don't know the basic facts of the matter you're talking about.

[@JagHiroshi]

Actually, what they're asking for is compromise, not to retain what we have now.

[@r0yalew1thcheese]

They are literally asking for feedback and you calling it bitching. I hope for your own sake that you have tried MM and put the hours into it to know it's nuances instead of theory crafting like most do, because these issues will eventually become apparent over time to all. There needs to be a compromise here, it can't be that almost every combat focused pilot with thousands of hours are all talking out of their asses.

[@hakon1027]

Your example is bs. its more like someone who never drove a car in a Lamborghini against a very skilled driver in an civic.

[@AccidentalFriendlyFire]

A1: "It should all be about the pilot." (referring to skill vs ships) Also A1: "I guarantee you, my Avenger Squadron in Auroras would win in Master Modes against an equal number of less skilled pilots in F8C Lightnings." A1: "It shouldn't be pay to win." (referring to bigger ships bring more powerful) Also A1: "In Live right now a Hornet will win against an M50." (which the Hornet is a larger, more heavily armed, and more expensive ship) A1: "It shouldn't matter what ship you bring." (referring to any ship should be able to win a fight) Also A1: "You have a pilot who keeps flying away from you? Bring a Razor." (referring to Live as it is right now) Mostly what I heard was him cherry picking things to argue his claim that MM sucks and should never have been, while as above he made statements that argue both for and against what he said. I get the impression that his entire reason for being in SC is for PvP combat, and he couldn't care less about other players, which we all know the majority of players are NOT combat focused. I heard both A1 and Splen talk about the Masters and Blasters ISC episode and also heard them discussing their hope that things will change from the current way MM is working in the modes it's currently available in. Neither paid enough attention to the episode, then, because they clearly stated in it I think twice that the current way it is set up is how they are starting on it and that future adjustments will be made, specifically by taking role WITHIN AN ARCHETYPE into account. I think it was a different video, perhaps SCL, where they discussed component choice and tuning affecting how ships will perform. And finally, as I think it was Splen thankfully pointed out, we still don't have all the systems in place that will affect everything we need to know to actually determine, and I mean properly determine, how ships will relate to each other in all areas, not just in combat.

[@MrDreiPner]

A1 is such a sweaty nerd. All for the changes.

[@AW-po7jr]

I believe the system corrects itself, if people don’t play anymore, things will change. I too didnt like many parts about the current flight model. Especially the light fighter meta but I also did not like that I had zero chance against the sweatlords. Like I couldn’t land any shots because of exploits like tricording and pip wiggling, using bugged ships etc. (All the things A1 exploited happily by the way.) There needed to be a solution. I really don’t think the current Master Modes are good but it can become good -probably not for the 1% but for a middle ground. Take Counter Strike: a pro player is being shot at by 3 players. He likely takes down one, maybe (!) even two but not all 3 - if all 3 push. This is how it should be. Right now a Fighter Pilot like A1 can probably fight 5-10 rookie pilots at once. This is bad.

[@ronja99]

So you just want low skill ceiling? If you don't practice, why should you have a chance against someone that does? When you do practice, don't you want a reward, like a skill gap? Will you have fun in master modes when enemies show up and outnumber you by +1 and that means you lose? What about when they hard-counter your ship choice? When did A1 use wiggling or bugged ships? How is tricording an exploit? Tricording should be nerfed, but how is it an exploit?

[@Sylar0n]

A pro competitive player going against 3 rookies will not get into a simultaneous firefight against 3 enemies. And btw why is tricording an exploit? Its part of the flight model, correctly utilizing it is actually a skill you have to learn if you are serious about dogfighting or racing.

[@yous2244]

Why the heck do you want a low skill ceiling in an MMO which will extremely lower the game's lifespan? I never hate extremely good players because I know they practiced hundreds of hours to get this good

[@DennisBLee]

Pip wiggling is cheese, but not an exploit... it's a weakness of the current targeting mechanics. Tricoording is a result of a realistic physical simulation, and a mechanical advantage that ANYONE can use by just pressing 3 buttons. WHEN to use it is the skill component. It is not an exploit either.

[@TheNefariousFox]

@@DennisBLee, They could just make the power a sphere, and make it all the same potential speed for all directions. There is so much tuning that could make MM better. But they overshot on EVERY change. Now everything is worse in the other direction.

[@babbell2653]

I speak to Avenger One Don't you understand that the current flight model is frustrating for 90% of players who want to participate in the war in the PU because the combat is too difficult to follow. The community has spoken. the fights move too quickly and it's not fun. Cig need to do something to slow down the fighting because so far the wars in the PU are disappointing for all but the elite players.

[@JakoMacro]

Agreed. Majority of players are fighting AI and this trend will continue. Most pirates will be AI. Most bounties will be AI. Currently fighting AI in live is just jousting at ridiculously high speeds where you don’t even see what you’re shooting at, they fly by you at Mach speeds and sometimes crash into you. Slowing down combat is the obvious fix for 95% of combat interactions. The remaining 5% of combat interactions boo hoo they are worse, cry about it.

[@tweaked74]

What kills the fighter? Turrets.

[@SultanDesync]

MM looks more and more the model to fit the levels and experiences in Squadron. Maybe when that's done and out we can go back to a decent pvp model.

[@BillyFrench]

I cant wait for master modes. It finally makes all ships relevant instead of the ridiculous light fighter meta. Being able to solo a hammerhead in an arrow is absurd. Master modes finally addresses this. Cant wait.

[@BobWobbles]

All they have to do to stop a single arrow killing a HH is make the HH shield regen higher than the arrows sustained DPS. Tweak one number and the problem is solved. No MM required.

[@aennaenn7468]

​@@BobWobbles That's not the only problem, the HH is supposed to be an anti-fighter Corvette... That right now can't hit fighters.

[@Liopleurodon]

ehm... maybe you should read the feedback in Spectrum: MMs doesnt fix or change that. The only thing that MMs managed was replace one meta (LF) with another meta (heavy fighter) and now its back to LF. That also won't be fixed until wepaons and armor/shield balance comes into the game.

[@Jeremy_Walker]

MM is not fun though. It honestly doesn’t feel like flying anymore.

[@yous2244]

This is a dumb argument, there are many ways to go away with the light fighter meta, increase hull armour, fire power for big guns, or even make it where Arrows can't penetrate Hammerheads

[@Sams911]

as a pilot IRL (and formerly an F15 pilot I the USAF), I'd have to say these guys are taking this way too seriously ... it's a video game.. And Avenger is wrong, the Air Force does assign pilots right out of basic UPT into F22's or in the case when I was in F15's.. Skill and performance during UPT being the primary selection criteria.

[@flockofwildcactus]

Unfortunately for all of us, he is often wrong...

[@yous2244]

So what if it's a video game? They're not taking it real life seriously but video game seriously

[@BigGomer]

I find it pretty funny he was that wrong about that. He also seems stuck on mm will be added and never touched again it will evolve and be improved over time like previous additions

[@805Peej]

Sounds like master modes would be a great thing for "easy" systems. You could easily come up with some scifi reason for it.

[@Smabe86]

You spend 10,000 hours playing an in development alpha and then complain when it changes.... Lol

[@Sir_f4ttius]

Exactly.

[@nekomancer4641]

Tbh there's no other 6dof space fighting game with this fidelity

[@TastyPotty]

Avenger_One seems big mad.

[@benmaier7232]

Tough I agree, that a high skill ceiling is fun, Avenger_one does sound a bit entitled to me. The game should be fun and not frustrating (regardless of money "pledged") for noobs, skilless and disabled people as well since it is a game and not a competition. Splens small adjustments thing is called Kaizen I think.

[@MrBenjaminRhoades]

What I worry about is that CIG takes MM criticism as criticism against SQ42, the game they've been dev'ing for the past X number of years. I don't think MM is a terrible solution for SQ42, which has a narrower scope, and far more constraints than SC. What I find baffling is that the devs think that something as fundamental as the flight model is going to transfer over to SC. They are different games, and they deserve different solutions. That's always been a fear that I've had about the parallel development of the two games; yes, some systems can transfer over, but actual gameplay? I'm not convinced.

[@checkfortunnels]

Fighter platforms being locked into "A beats B most of the time," is realistic. 90% of aerial combat history is, "Wildcat pilots suffered heavy casualties against Zeros, but the US Navy's fortunes turned with the introduction of the Hellcat, engineered specifically to defeat the Zero." It's rarely about pilot skill as everyone sends their best pilots and the bad ones don't last.

[@RestrictedHades]

So you want the game to be pay to win?

[@samrye8342]

But it's tactics for the air frame vs air frame. A1 doesn't speak well to this. It's good to have knowledge to learn and know. It's the narrowing of the capabilities of the ships that's the problem, the balance. You need to know what the zero can do. You don't want to slow down and turn with it. You boom and zoom and out run the zero. If it's in your tail you dive to high speeds and turn. The zero had a lower top speed and lacked hydraulic controls reducing its maneuverability at high speed. SC needs these types of matchups. Querks to exploit. You might find yourself in a bad matchup and hope the other guy does play it right. The ships should be capable of providing variety and options, strengths and weaknesses not balance.

[@nekomancer4641]

You are looking at it at a statistical level. However at individual tactical level there's so much nuance in BFM & tactics. Even Wildcats can beat zeroes at certain speed envelopes & employing tactics like thatch scissors. Not to mention the nuanced match up that existed between spitfire & bf109 in the battle of Britain, F4U/F6F/P38/P51 vs zeroes, etc etc... They don't "auto-win" because their airframe counters the other. They needed to know their maneuver basics & the advantages & weakness of the airframes to pull out them wins Even simply talking in a strategical level, Hellcat did not magically "counters" the zeroes. The downfall of IJN had way more with logistic & their poor force regeneration strategy mirrored by the amazing job US pilots did at employing better training & force regeneration. All these nuanced details are what's lossed if the mechanic forces an "A beats B" Meta.

[@samrye8342]

@@nekomancer4641 I totally agree, the variety of matchups the decision of the tactics you take for a given situation with the knowledge of you and your enemies capabilities is the depth SC should be striving for. It needs the space and speeds to have these variables and not be so concerned with balance.

[@GeneElder.R27]

@@RestrictedHadeshow about balanced so an aurora doesn’t decimate 10 hornets because the basement dweller pilot is twitching like he just injected an 8ball into his penis.

[@Biter1975]

All the games I have played that had longevity had enough depth of skill that you could always feel incremental improvements, no matter thar you had played 1000hrs. This MM looks better, up until the point you actually play it. However I also must say, the last version, chase the pixel around the screen was also garbage.

[@Star6Future]

Damn i mean i definitely havent played as much as a1 but ive been playing since 3.2 and there was alot here i disagree with. But i understand where a1 is coming from and even more so with splen on the racing issues. My main thoughts from this is that theres probably more going on here meant for the future of the game than any of us know. Possibly like how space tomato mentions that this could be a temporary skill reduction to get more players into pilot seats before raising the bar again. I mean the majority of my friends and people ive met in game do NOT want to pilot due to the high skill ceiling.

[@Killingblaze]

I listen to these and all I hear is people that think an Aurua should be able to beat a hammer head. Some seem to think that it’s unreal to have different rolls in ships, guess what, in RL we have interceptors and dog fighters and long range attackers. An Aurua could burn out its capacitors and shouldn’t ever be able to touch something with large shields without having a large number of them.

[@Kutkh-]

They have marketed the game as a combat game since the original kickstarter. I'm actually done spending money in SC until they fix PvP with mastermodes.

[@GameSetPatch]

I'm primarily an Industrial player, and I strongly disagree with making basic functions of Mining or Cargo Hauling difficult. If I'm hauling widgets between stations, the skill gap between me and other freight haulers should be knowing what to buy and where to sell it. It should be choosing load outs that allow me to navigate difficult and hazardous routes, or choosing between defensive firepower or stealthy obfuscation. It should be my ability to haggle with other players, to organize a social network, and being able to reliably deliver cargo on time. These are all things that are already available in Elite Dangerous and have been for nearly a decade. I want the same thing from Star Citizen but with more depth to the setting than ED has managed thus far. The only time I can think of when basic activities should be highly difficult is when a player's ship is damaged in a way that makes normal functions like auto docking impossible. Or if you are going somewhere that lacks your typical infrastructure, so like a Smugglers Den isn't going to have Landing Assistance but a major Metropolitan Area will.

[@LeandroMenaUgarte]

Having fun in complexity is very subjective. I finished every From Software game because I enjoy the RPG aspects of those games. Any boss is easy with the right weapon and buffs. Yes, you can kill Malenia with basic stats but you can also demolish her spamming a simple bubble spell. I understand the genius in From Soft design is that you can achieve both. I don't know if you can do the same in SC. The time complexity you need to achieve a high level of control in SC today far surpasses the skill you need to control your character in any 3D game. The sad reality is most people don't find complex control schemes fun and when SC starts to dial back from realism to the point of fun I think we are going to lose a lot of people who enjoyed what we have now.