SaltEMike Reacts to Star Citizen Live Q&A: Invictus Vehicle Gameplay

The Video - • Star Citizen Live Q&A:...
Check out my main channel - / @saltemike
Check out my clips channel -
/ @saltemikeclips
Check Out My Twitch Stream to see this live: / saltemike

[@SaltEMike]

I was pretty harsh on Jared at the start, I want to make sure it’s clear that I love ISC and SCL and there is no person that should be making it other than Jared. Last weeks show was not good, and communication is key when you have 10000 different ideas and things going on…and it sucks when we have to assume stuff.

[@Dominus-Noctis]

We gotta uplift the game as much as we constructively criticize them. Jared rules and we love him. ISC would be trash with another host. Kudos to you for saying this in retrospect Mike!

[@superpinoi]

Im telling.😏

[@superpinoi]

I completely agree with you they should just quickly answer those types of questions like bounty V2. his answer was completely fine and satisfying for that question.

[@MrSirFluffy]

I thought last weeks show was good? I was not in depth with previous drama or interworking's of SC. Last weeks show was very helpful in understanding what we should expect. Maybe this was obvious stuff for those who lingered for 8 years but not for new people or returning members. I skipped like 4-5 years of news and haven't followed the project. I returned after that Squadron 42 trailer because I was reminded the project existed. Eventually the community just has to accept the first 6-8 years of development was , mostly a waste of time. Almost like SC is a different company with the same name, they work way different now and actually have real goals where as before it was a loose bunch of nerds with no real aim but all the drive in the world. I am treating this whole project as if development started 3-4 years ago, because it definitely feels that way.

[@tk0pilot]

Jarrod is the man! Big Respect for this comment

[@tk0pilot]

Mayor Huckabee seemed pushed to his limits in this one a little bit. Feel bad for him. Dudes doing what hes told, and prolly the best anyone could. Hang in there brother! I see you

[@mattgoldstone8350]

The game does this to people they are still working on figuring out what to do. Death of a spaceman is still not ironed out its only been 12+ years. These things should have been done pre game design not 12+ years out.

[@brownells]

Hey Mike, if you want to talk about the ballistics stuff, that's been our thing since 1939.

[@RyoninShonin]

This has the potential to be a fantastic episode. Discussing ballistic ammo with an actual ammunition retailer would be an awesome perspective. I've made posts about the game adding firearm safety/range safety training to the tutorial. Many players of this game are in professions with exposure to firearms, but large numbers of players have little to no experience. I can see the benefit of an interview starting with a short reading of the rules of firearm safety like many other firearm content creators do. Im surprised by your response @Brownells :) I hope @SaltEMike reads this and takes you up on the offer :)

[@rjlolatte1]

"sounds cool" is Star Citizen in a nutshell

[@TomTrustworthy]

big fan of the audio team huh? It's good to appreciate their work.

[@terrandysart3587]

yup. imagine tech and head cannon. always and forever.

[@SpaceDad42]

Not even that usually.

[@xredrum41x]

Sounds cool until you play it and it’s a trainwreck.

[@Schooterl]

A Trainwreck of badassness, I've had a lot of laughs and fun with star citizen. I can't wait for Pyro and engineering gameplay!

[@tboneforreal]

Thank you, Mike. I made a similar comment on their YT video. Don't ignore questions just because the feature is not in active development and tell us to just assume there is no update. There is a reason a feature is not in active development, just tell us the reason.

[@DaringDan]

Is CIG's communication ever going to get past T0?

[@solid466king9]

I don't think so sadly 😔

[@LumiLupo]

guys... sandworm... they really have improved even if they're not perfect :P

[@CristianCiotti]

Their communication is exactly like the game loops we have in the game… half broken and half missing.

[@DaringDan]

@@CristianCiotti My man.

[@nosir5596]

The BHv2 explanation fell so fucking flat for me. That was a "by end of year" feature in Chris Roberts' May 2022 letter. It was something they talked extensively about throughout that year as a 4.0 addition, it was teased throughout last year during sprint reports and at citcon even. And then two years later they 'determined' that it needs restraints? (which were shown off at citcon btw). They 'determined' it needs the ability to track a target? They 'determined' it needs a law system refactor? How exactly did they fuck around with it for two years without determining any of those things, idk, at the start when you would typically go "What all does this feature need before it can work?" All that explanation did was show how fucking incompetent they are, how incapable of plotting out a feature or project they are, and how incapable they are of seeing anything through to completion. It's not really a 'fair' explanation, it's an indictment of the entire fucking company and project. I hope that level of mismanagement and fucking up was the result of outgoing leadership like Todd and maybe something we'll see improvement on going forward but holy shit, idk how you drop the ball so hard that you backburnered bounty hunting after two years of teasing because it suddenly occurred to you a restraint system is needed. That's how you argue against the logic. You ask "Why was it ever at the point you were announcing its prospective release when such basic required tech was not there. How did you ever get to that point without knowing it would require these things?" You ask why they so flagrantly misled people to begin with.

[@Turbovolver]

Or Chris Roberts just lied, heh. Occam's razor and all.

[@CobusGreyling]

It's just always the same old shit. As a game developer myself I can tell you there is *_no_* fucking good reason to start full on development of a feature like BHv2 and have no clue as to the technical requirements, and then just "give up" on it months down the line. It makes no fucking sense. What they should simply do is knock out the features Jared mentioned: Quantum tracking etc

[@JFrombaugh]

Because CIG wasn’t really fucking around with BH v2 for two years, they were just playing their usual games and trying to get the community hyped up for concepts in order to make more money.

[@Kessra]

They should do a Q&A with their marketing department at one point. This seems to be the only department that hasn't received time on ICS or similar formats so far. In addition to that, this seems to be the only department that always delivers on time.

[@Mace1000S]

It really sounds like this game is built with job security in mind. No easy fix or slide bar type of tools to fix power speed, turn rate and trim. Same with guns,

[@Netist_]

I don't necessarily have a problem with "forcing" a player to use a ground vehicle for certain things, as long as that requirement is in someway communicated to the player before they take the mission. Just let me know that the bunker has AA. Or let me see on the map that there's severe weather at my destination, that kind of thing. Ground vehicles are cheap as dirt to buy, and even cheaper to rent, so I don't see cost being prohibitive to the point of barring players from those missions if they don't already have a ground vehicle. It's true that not every player will have a ship that can carry a ground vehicle, but that's not really an issue either imo--not every ship should be equipped to handle every mission.

[@coltranenaima6869]

If they are mad at us for claiming ships often due to buggy gameplay then I feel a storm brewing with all this extra maintenance and cost requirements while missions still giving the same low payouts.

[@DistortedChrist]

They just keep talking about how the game isn't punishing enough and what they can do to make things more consequential. As if the random death bugs and broken missions aren't already a hindrance. I don't mind them talking about the future as to when the small things are fixed, a lot of the mechanics seem really cool, but they need to really fix the small inconveniences before they try to move onto more punishing gameplay mechanics. For example, 30 minutes waiting for a ship claim out of a busy dads day when he only has 2 hours to play a game is significantly more punishment than a lot of things. Time is our most valuable asset and they will have to respect that boundary if they want to see long term success.

[@JFrombaugh]

I'm anxiously awaiting this Road to 1.0 roadmap so we can see EXACTLY what features CIG deems necessary for a baseline 1.0 Live release of this game, and which ones we'll just have to wait awhile longer to see. One of my fears all along has been that a lot of the career/mission stuff they've been teasing is actually going to be post-1.0, which is gonna be a hard sell for people who have already bought ships like the MSR & Carrack whose core functionality is still not in the game.

[@JJS563]

IMO even after a 1.0 release, there is still like 4-5 years of work on this game

[@TomTrustworthy]

Ok so they don't want to have a whole show saying "this question asked about X, X is not in active development" then do the same for y/z/ect. I think the obvious thing is to have a list of what features there are then set them to "active" or "not active" so if Jimmy wants to know if "hacking" is in active dev he can look at a CIG site showing its not active. But wouldnt that basically be the roadmap? So we already have this as long as CIG keeps it updated as things change states and as long as we go check there rather than asking on social media. The question is, does the roadmap cover this and does cig keep it updated? I don't know because I don't check the road map. Things will come when they come and I will just keep checking each patch for fun and play when it's fun.

[@silus73]

The proof that ships should not explode while crash landing on a planet is Star Trek. The enterprise D crashed with no power and ship slamed into the planet while damaged severely did not explode.

[@MrSyphen6]

It will be just more fun that way. Crash landing on a planet with crazy monsters having to use ground vehicles to get to a base to buy parts to fix your ship. There is just so much more they can do.

[@SpaceDad42]

Not only is Tony gone, he left in a bad way.

[@GrunfWorks]

1:25:44 Have a site heavily defended by AA turrets gun and missiles, would encourage players taking that mission to take a ground vehicle perhaps

[@sevilnatas]

In his statement about not addressing things that aren't in active development, he give a perfectly good answer to a question about something that isn't in active development, at which point, everyone screams that is the answer we were asking for! Now we know. How is it they think that leaving us in the dark on things they don't have happy answers for is better than just letting us know the truth? We are big boys and girls, we can handle the truth.

[@dystrakshyn4627]

I think the reason CIG elects to not directly address all questions in the manner Jared did with BH v2 is that it would result in a lot of questions with an answer where the thing being asked about isn't being actively developed. I feel like they seek to answer questions about things they ARE working on as to maintain a certain level of optimism about the game. We all know Star Citizen is ASTRONOMICALLY ambitious, so focusing on what is current instead of what's far ahead can be more grounded and fair to the player base.

[@rr46benji41]

rather than weapon sizes, imagine modern ammunition sizes. Size 1 Ball Gat: 5.56mm Size 2 Ball Gat: 7.62mm Size 3 Ball Gat: 9mm Size 1 Ball Repeat: 7.62mm Size 2 Ball Repeat: 9mm Size 3 Ball Repeat: 12.7mm Size 1 Ball Can: 9mm Size 2 Ball Can: 12.7mm Size 3 Ball Can: 20mm Size 1 Mass Driv: 12.7mm Size 2 Mass Driv: 20mm Size 3 Mass Driv: 25mm i know these are small sizes for ship weapons but gives a rough idea just by barrel diameter, irl the 7.62 is a bigger round than the 9mm but im not talking about round length here, just diameter for an example. so you could buy a crate of 9mm rounds that would fit either a size 1 cannon, a size 2 repeater, or a size 3 gatling. or you could buy 12.7mm rounds that will fit a size 3 repeater, size 2 cannon, or a size 1 mass driver, but cant be shoehorned into a gatling. just as an example.

[@First_Chapter]

@CIG If / when you do string together multi-disciplinary missions, please leave those that allow us to focus on a single discipline in place alongside.

[@hangglidingmontana6134]

There's been no iteration on MM, since at least December. Glad Mike is enjoying and engaging with it (as a player that doesn't like pvp) while that's my whole loop, and it's unbearably boring. Won't play again till there's a flight model with decent mass, physics and heating. Maybe with weapons and missiles that work. Space soup is lazy, more keybinds is tone deaf. They're doomed to fail.

[@user-co8vc5nd7l]

I haven’t played since mm dropped into live. I tried to like it in the lead up through etpu and gave feedback but it boring and immersion shattering. Not the game for me unfortunately. I’ll keep watching Mike for updates but without a decent flight model I don’t see myself returning.

[@Wyatt_o7]

That's great news because I'm already loving the firebirds stealth fighting. Allthough the desync right now is extremely frustrating. Had to rage quite due to constant random ship exploding making me respawn over and over to get to one damn mission.

[@tomsmarkovs1946]

Ships are just OP, that's why it seems like Forcing to use ground vehicles. Storms Atmospheric pressure AA turrets AA vehicles All this needs make using ships take more time instead of a ground vehicle. It's not forcing. . it's adding gameplay and balancing ships .

[@pr0saic692]

Dunno if you ever figure it out in the vid but it seemed as though they were talking about gatlings (think minigun) using the same size ammo as a repeater (think rifle) one size smaller. That's how it came across to me and it makes sense if you think of the barrel sizes on a s3 gatling vs a s2 repeater

[@toombstone9596]

Yeah, The way it came across to me was size 3 Gatling uses the same ammo as the Size 2 repeater as well. Though they said size 1 repeater just after and i wonder if they meant ballistic cannon. It makes sense in my mind because In order to fire a bigger round faster it would need to increase in size to handle the potential pressures of firing bigger rounds at faster rates.

[@aimesblack]

I think they said that in the test mode laser weapons also behave like balistics going through shields but thats only for testing in the mode and will be moved back

[@wb2463]

The more I hear about engineering the more excited I am for it to hit Live! My favourite way to play SC is kinda RP-lite where I live in my ship and avoid claiming ships at all unless they're destroyed, so to have something that not only means ships should get destroyed less often but also gives me something to actually do on board my ship other than just flying is a super hype idea!

[@silus73]

I want the filters and fuses to be craftable

[@runescapeppl41]

Mike to make the ammo part a bit easier to comprehend. Think of the .50 cal bullet, same size ammunition used on different size platforms, like the desert eagle and barrette .50 cal for example

[@Marlax-101]

ground vehicles, the environment could be a good solve but hard to balance with the time it takes to travel and getting stuck on rocks. Saving fuel could also be a decent. we already got some hazard zones like bunkers that driving could be better for. scanning might not be the best thing but maybe some kind of special notification with certain vehicles like the rover might take soil samples ect as it drives and alert you to life forms and minerals.

[@stevenballard5889]

I want to know if the small ships do 200-250meters in combat mode what will the massive capital ships be doing? 50?

[@alexpetrov8871]

47:48 "more soft death" - Looks like some of these changes are in PU now. in last week my Cutlas was softkilled above Klescher 4 times. Every time ship fell to the planet from 8-9km height and didn't explode. I walked around a bit then backspaced.

[@sevilnatas]

An interesting way they might have approached the communications surrounding Master Modes could have been saying to the community that it is necessary for all of us to feel a little bit of pain around the way Master Modes needs to roll out, and that they appreciate the community's tolerating this pain and promise to work as quickly as possible to do the massive amount of work required to balance eery ship. This would have signaled to the community that things won't be perfect at go live, but CIG appreciates everyone's patience. It seems like people didn't quite understand that rolling out Master Modes requires to big things. 1. the roll out of new code that manages Master Modes and 2. the configuration of ever individual ship, so it lives in the new Master Modes with appropriate flight and combat mechanics, specific to each ship. The first one goes live on day one, but as mentioned in the video, the second part goes live with generalized configurations (except for some specific ships) and the specialized fine tuning, per ship, will be done asap, based on time and observation of player experience in the PU.

[@Noskavian]

Its always been a thing that Lasers are supposed to Melt armor and be super effective against it, but you have to chew through the shields. While Ballistics is resisted by armor and less effective against armor but it punches through shields. Now how much that is in the actual build as varied but that's always been the plan.

[@UnderdogSMO]

Lol i just had a UEC seller add pop up on your video

[@cybinnine4977]

Make it like any racing event. you want your vehicle to be as light as possible. if you don't pull weapons and ammo out, if you don't pull your QD and Shields out then you are weight will factor in your speed and agility ,.

[@theninedivides6851]

never had my helmet off with all the doors open, but I have had my helmet off since the new character creator because now I love how I look so I try to wear my helmet less and sometimes I forge to put it on before leaving my ship onto a moon or something and almost die lol

[@Marlax-101]

i think if every ship survives a crash it will be a bit bland but if its based on hull strength or something that would be good. i am a fan of crash landing on planets tho but so far its mostly been something i notice from anvil ships. most of the anvil ships i have ever got disabled in have survived a crash landing and a few of the fighter.

[@kwarkon1]

I noticed that some questions in Q&A it self do have Jered responses in form of a mod comment.

[@idemus168]

I've never compared/looked up the damage profiles of the S3 gatling and the S2 repeater, but I have a couple explanations... 1) maybe the damage is the same between the 3 sizes, but obviously a gatling with multiple barrels has a substantially higher firerate increasing DPS rather than damage per hit. (most likely imho) 2) longer barrels on weapons with explosive cartridges (terra based firearms) help the round to continue to accelerate to a certain point. A size 3 weapon would have a longer barrel than a S2 or S1, I would assume. This assumes that it's not some sort of mass accelerator that doesn't use explosive cartridges. If so...space magic...and larger weapon=more room for more space magic? 3) The round is somehow used differently or modified in different guns. It's heated up, sharpened, blunted or some other mystical modification while being primed to fire. Mass Effect has like universal metal shards, for instance, that it uses for all of its weapons and they all fire with different characteristics due to the mass effect field changing per weapon. (not likely at all)

[@seekerhooligan781]

Great show Mike! Excellent take and commentary! Really agree with you 100% on this show Mike. 1) Mike on MM. "It's boring". This. 2) "The nature of balance is imbalance" YES 44:02 Mike nails it This is what we lost in MM 3.23 imo. Flight in ships, racers, and the loss of a skill ceiling in favor of boring "balancing", and "roles". Fix this and MM, and Racing in MM is fixed! Eg: I can still beat a higher dps ship (within reason) because "skillz". Even Jared's comment on percentage reference is great in this case. 3) Fuel. MM seems too heavy on gas. Please give me enough hydrogen to complete...anything really. LoL

[@bobstark4201]

Have roads, rest stops, highways and dirt roads, points of interests, etc to make driving vehicles on a planet its own experience. Otherwise, they're just a very small, inconsequential means to an end as opposed to a unique and highly enjoyable experience.

[@alexanderdooley5833]

the size 3 stuff and larger not being removable lends more value and incentive to tow and repair a ship rather then salvaging it.

[@soeveth]

I think the mistake CIG did, is they released MM and the combat rebalancing at the same time. So not only the flight model was changed but all the ship weapons feel totally different. It just made everything feel wrong. After I put in about 100 hours in on the etpu, I went looking for explanations, and I found Tomatoes podcast with Yogi and AV1 and that is giving me hope. I 100% dont like how ships fly right now but im giving them a chance to tweak things. Im just done backing the project until things get figured out. I really dont like the overall decisions CIG has been making in the last month and it has me extremely worried for the future.

[@thomasinlondon2849]

In a nutshell they have worked on new items with no pre-orders, and left ships on the shelf with millions of dollars in pre-orders. Wtf is wrong with cig.

[@Marlax-101]

The jumptown thing is the problem with most games. everyone says they want to do something and it doesnt matter if its unprofitable, yet anytime something in game is a think its based on what makes the most money. like any game and people dont do it if they can avoid it if something else is found to be better.

[@tk0pilot]

Happy friday boys and space gals!

[@michaelcacace1414]

All the game needs imo is thr expanse, this should be priority, make the expanse and make scanning better and make mining lasers give off a huge signal so they are easier to track and give mining enough $ to pay for escorts, also thry need some type of ground specific missions (ie trading/oil mining) in places on planets that ships cant fly (weather or maybe the substance your mining is to volitile to be around quantum fuel or the change in atmospheric pressure makes it boom) and make them in specific locations so they are easy to pirate as well making getting the oil and getting out a mission in itself (using only ground vehicles) game would be 500x better if they made it around teamwork

[@kierlen]

Falling through atmo and slamming into the ground is okay because what makes sense takes a back seat to fun. Mario cart racing takes a back seat for things that make sense because you are really into racing ... Pick one man.

[@eshamblazer]

This was a good episode

[@ThreeGoddesses]

Balance is totally possible. There should always be a best option, and a worst option, but the issue shouldn't be that there isnt any overlap with any of the in between options. Ships can have unique characteristics and identities, but they shouldn't be so unique and defined that doing anything outside of its explicitly defined role is impossible. You SHOULDNT be able to take a prospector to war and do well, but a prospector SHOULD be capable of self defence. A buccaneer SHOULD be a solid option for combat, but it shouldn't be incapable of running errands without mother ship nearby for fuel.

[@ThreeGoddesses]

If CIG wants a game that's immersive and full of life what a ship can do should always be somewhat murky. Otherwise we run into a game that isnt a universe, its a bunch of content islands that occasionally bump into each other.

[@plainblake2465]

I can say 100% I do not access my inventory in my ship if any doors are open, so I have not taken a drink with any doors open.

[@Marlax-101]

could make a super powerful fighter ship for pvp players but it has very low fuel capacities so they can only fly it for a few minutes before its out of gas and need refueling.

[@titansquirrel4408]

nooo mike perfect balance within a role is the opposite of boring, it allows for skill expression and style. If one fighter had a 70% win rate in smash thats all you would see, the standard goal is 45-55%. if goddamn warhammer 40k can do that this edition we can get that in SC

[@yoursmartstop1639]

Imo, one of the biggest factors for this games long developments is added features that require changes!! How many ship redesigns have been made due to add features, smdh

[@Embarkation1]

I don’t think you’re misunderstanding either Mike, it sounds to me like the ammunition size no matter what it is doesn’t matter. It’ll just be a reload canister. I think it should’ve been size of the gun matching. It adds more variety for the guys who are servicing them - they need to carry a selection of different ammunition sizes and your org needs to be better prepared. **Also Star Sim is a much better name - Thank God.

[@saltemikereacts]

Its not, the dev posted on spectrum.

[@Embarkation1]

@@saltemikereacts thank you - I’ll go check it out.

[@shivo4328]

We are witnesses a bigest trash talk JARED THE CLOWN KING OF TRASH.

[@lolsalad52]

On mining missions, i WANT them to add, go get me raw quartz or similar, so that tier 3 rss aren't just inert materials basically. Either that or make them slightly more expensive making them closer to t2 value so the small amounts i get are worth refining and selling at some stage, instead of the auto dump they are rn. Be4 crafting is added i think missions would be the first way to make t3 mineables feel better.

[@PotatoHate]

what is this audio jump scare at 21:36

[@BokehDev]

31:20 me in global chat when they add the Expanse; wtb raw qua

[@seekerhooligan781]

Racing, they just need to go back and ask Splen imo, and the different racing modes, especially land vehicles sounds great also.

[@breadbeard6722]

I have a feeling their shows are devolving into just another sales pitch/ advertisement for the game (maybe for people who are on the fence) rather than a form of communication about what is happening. It feels they just want to talk to completely new players or those who don't own the game. I get that feeling because it seems like they don't want to talk about negative things because that may scare people away

[@Orion1632]

think of it as ammo goo that'll make the ammunition for the guns

[@torodinson6958]

9:00 super strong point

[@alexanderdooley5833]

the ammo for ship guns is ok for start, but later on i want s2 cannon rounds and s2 mass driver rounds and s2 repeater/gatling ammo. EDIT: ship refueling mission, just give it an escort you try to board them and you get attacked....

[@UBIQUITAR]

How about reloading is done with common resources that work for every ship that would need to unload be didn't explain it well not same size but same resource

[@operationorigami8962]

If they add mining missions, they CANNOT ALLOW CARGO HAULERS to participate. If cargo haulers can buy the resource from a city, then that's not a mining mission, it's a cargo mission.

[@violentmnky]

Why can't they just be both? If someone needs ore why would they care if you mined it yourself or just delivered it?

[@operationorigami8962]

@violentmnky it's less about the in game lore and more about player experience. If these missions are at all possible for cargo haulers to do, then that demographic will completely gobble up "mining" missions and leave nothing for the actual intended audience. One good example of this happening now is cargo haulers buying up tons and tons of RMC at places like Rappel and then selling it at cities. This ends up completely shutting out actual salvagers, ask any Reclaimer owner and they'll tell you that they have trouble selling their RMC because some C2 pilot already bottomed out the demand. It's the same concept with mining missions. We've seen this a dozen times before, if you give cargo haulers an inch, they'll take a mile. Besides, cargo hauling has gotten/will be getting so much new content, while us miners have been left high and dry since 3.19 changes. If mining missions get added, they have to be ONLY for miners, not anybody else.

[@JJS563]

@@operationorigami8962 I think a good answer to this is to ask for RAW/Unrefined ore and give a boost in sales per SCU provided. Elite Dangerous does this fairly well at the moment

[@Dumb-Comment]

the new UI "sounds cool" the new MM "sounds cool" the new engineering gameplay "sounds cool" CIG have to get their heads screw on straight

[@ThreeGoddesses]

Also, I just wanna say that there's like 1 ship that's built with airlocks. The other 99.9% of ships were never built with atmospheric maintenance and retention in mind.

[@ThatGuyKazz]

Ok so I have a BIG issue with them having 20+ different calibers of ammo for FPS weapons but then trying to "unify" ammo for different size ship weapons. IMO it should be exactly the opposite. For FPS we should have 2 maybe 3 different calibers for rifles and machine guns, 1 maybe 2 for pistols and SMGs, and maybe 1 for large caliber snipers plus special ammo types for each of the heavy weapons like GLs, rocket launchers, and railguns. That would be 6-10 FPS calibers, add in maybe 2-4 sizes of batteries for laser weapons and it's 8-14 and even that might be too many yet in-game now we have a system where every single FPS weapon has it's own unique ammo type which is absolute non-sense. Both from a gameplay perspective and from a logical perspective there is no reason to have all these FPS ammo types. From a gameplay perspective it just creates feels bad moments when you have tons of ammo around you but none of it is useful for the weapon you have equipped. That sort of gameplay design works well when you're trying to make your FPS combat feel like Halo or Call of Duty but it feel really bad when you're trying to be more of an ARMA like mil-sim which is really the direction that Star Citizen FPS is going. Different ammo types makes sense if you want to encourage players to swap weapon on the fly like you kill a guy run over to his body and pick up the gun he had in that case it makes sense that each weapon has a different kind of ammo but that isn't what Star Citizen is really going for. The only other reason to have multiple ammo types is if you want to add some complexity to the logistical planning and resource management side of the game which I think is more than sufficiently achieve with the 8-14 types I mentioned above. From a logical perspective it also makes no sense because relatively speaking the difference in performance from one caliber to the next is so insignificant like the difference between 5.56x45 (what is used by most NATO militaries) and 7.62x39 (What is used in AK-47s) is very minimal one moves slower but has higher mass but in terms of total energy and stopping power they are roughly equal there is no reason to not just categorize them both as a intermediate rifle caliber. When it comes to ship weapons there are different gameplay considerations and the logical "realism" reasoning holds a lot more water. First off just to get it out of the way from a logical point of view I think it would be fair to think of ship weapons more like modern heavy weapon systems and consider what size of weapon those modern weapons would fall into. For example you have things like an M-134 mini-gun or an M2 Browning which would likely both be size 1 as they are both far to large for a single individual to transport and operate them they are technically man portable and can reasonably be deployed by a 3-4 man fire team. The calibers they use are .308 (a full sized rifle caliber) and .50 BMG which is basically the point where shoulder fired ammunition starts to top out and where you start to get into anti-material calibers. Stepping up from that you have things like M61 Vulcan or GIAT M693 which both use 20mm ammo of different lengths. These would be roughly equivalent to your size 2 guns where they are no longer man portable but they are not likely to be effective against heavily armored targets like a main battle tank but could be used effectively against lightly armored vehicles like a Humvee. Moving up from there your size 3 would be things like the 25mm chain guns that are the primary armament of things like the Bradley and LAV-25 and these are suitable for engaging similarly armored vehicles and can under the right circumstances take out a tank but wouldn't be reliable in that role and would absolutely rip something like a Humvee to pieces. I could keep going but I think I've demonstrated the point. Each of these calibers is a major step up in both both destructive capabilities and in the overall size of the weapon system and the rounds they fire are WILDLY different in size, going from a .50 BMG aka 12.7x99mm up to the 20x139mm then up to a 25x223mm is a substantial increase in size of that cartage and I think that it makes sense to reflect that different sized ship weapons. From a gameplay perspective I think rearming ships is also exactly where it makes sense to increase that logical complexity. Like they mention rearming a fighter from the hangar of a Polaris or and Idris or whatever but that is something that the crew of that ship should have to account for. I don't think it makes sense for them to just say "hey we have ammo for who ever lands here" when they gear up and stock their ship they should know what fighters are going to be on board and what sizes ammo they are going to need for those fighters and have to plan their stockpile load out accordingly. If they run out of size 3 ammo because they filled their cargo hold with too much size 1 ammo then they might need to abandon that operation and return to base to restock. They shouldn't have the get out of jail free card of just being able to stick all that size 1 ammo into those size 3 guns. That just diminishes the value of proper operational planning and meat of combat logistics as a skill based gameplay loop.

[@Marlax-101]

could just make race ships run through parts rapidly. high performance but need constant replacement.

[@oceanaa967]

With crafting and base building I hope we see a player store not just venders

[@jeffroLife]

Loot button is back trying to open things. Half the loot boxes open and I can’t move stuff to my inventory. Lag at times, and for no reason about 95% of my inventory just went away. Also, you can’t put ship components to haul to your preferred station. Same ole Star Citizen. New patch same issues with added new issues. 2033 the game will be stable

[@user-yc1sb2so3k]

I also thought that only hard triers are against the MM. But when I post my vision on how to fix it for sweaty dogfighters I got a lot of crying cargo players messages that are more scared of pirates with MM

[@MareLooke]

I just hate the various modes. SC's flight model used to be beautifully consistent, making it easy to pick up, now it's a mess of unintuitive modes that do various things to your ships flight characteristics and systems that you constantly have to switch between. I disliked the various flight modes in Elite, and SC's version is even worse. I'm neither an experience "space (or any other) simmer", nor a PvP players, for that matter. I just enjoyed flight in 3.22 and haven't really bothered with the game after giving MM a try a few times when 3.23 dropped.

[@yous2244]

Wait? When the heck did you react to this?

[@DerKilianist]

Yes

[@kierlen]

Yes. Fun should always overrule anything else. Now where is my ranch ship so I can raise and breed poke-pals.

[@mobius6772]

I really hate squadron battle right now. Everyone is pip wiggling and running F7A MK II because the damage is exponentially greater than other fighters.

[@Orion1632]

they could just have a spread sheet of all ships and what its status is.

[@sevilnatas]

What drives me crazy are little bugs that spend years on the issues list but also completely cripple a particular vehicle or game play. For example, why am I still having issues spawn my Hull C after a major patch and many update patches have come out? I don't even consider using the Hull C because it is so unreliable. The elevator on the Carrack, the scratch windshield on the Vulture, X1 freezing you in place when you try to get on it, altitude doesn't show up for me in any ship right now, etc. etc. We need more bug fix patches that hit the PU silently and often. When a new hits the verse, we should see a quick 4 or 5 patches, in quick succession, that fix all the little bugs that weren't found before releasing it.

[@GhostOfSnuffles]

The issue is that they say they working on something to shut people up then in the next Q&A it's completely dropped. If they actually worked on what they say they're working on then it would be an acceptable answer, *however* when it's used as an excuse to sweep aside people who have waited *10 YEARS* for a finished game then those customers have every right to ask again and again as many times as they want. "Coming soon" was suppose to happen back in 2014, not 10 F-ing years later.

[@Todestelzer]

Jared probably has to follow some rules too. He can't just do what he want.

[@First_Chapter]

@CIG2 If / when you have missions that aren't guaranteed to be purely one thing, such as space combat with nothing on foot, please leave missions on offer that are specific to one style and deliver exactly what's on the tin. Personally: ship combat is great; on foot combat never do it and don't want it.

[@Anonnymouse53]

Now that there is light at the end of the tunnel for their tech "pillars" I feel more than ever that SC is struggles under it's own weight with gameplay variety because it all has to live and be balanced in the same world. In most MMO/open worlds PvP is often hard-restricted by level, location or is opt-in. Then activities like races, missions, raids, dungeons, etc are instanced. I think the vision of a completely persistent open world with no borders is cool, but I'm not sure the juice will be worth the squeeze. I sincerely hope they prove me wrong, but they are going to need to throw a ton more resources at gameplay mechanics in the near future to make all these things fit together.

[@angelarch5352]

54:54 "Which mission is "call to arms"?"... oh... my... god... as much as I respect Jared, you know when backers accuse CIG people of never playing the game? Ya, that. And it doesn't matter if internally the devs have a different name for it-- the game itself uses that name, if you ever play it.

[@Tacticalpanda757]

sometimes questions dont get answered. theres a time frame. we expect them to answer EVERYTHING every SC live. I do believe the community managers could answer alot in a thread than on here. retaliator and firebird get more missiles! :)

[@Wickwire86]

I never hear anyone talking about cost when it comes to balance of ships

[@5h4ndt]

Not a pvper and still hate mm. I just like flying and it has gotten very unfun.

[@angelarch5352]

exactly.

[@fn8382]

Why , Whats wrong with flying now ? I have not Been playing for 2 years now

[@5h4ndt]

​@@fn8382 They brought back the mode changing from years ago, and butchered the flight model, added magic space drag and shield/weapons don't work magically in one mode. I'm bad at describing it actually, there's a lot of feedback in the spectrum feedback thread that does a better job than me. At where it is now, I don't even want to play anymore.

[@fn8382]

@@5h4ndt its bad as the first flight mode they introduced and removed my god

[@theninedivides6851]

I love Jared lol Like, honestly he is a good host and asks good questions

[@Hellhawk]

@SaltEMike, I'm a gun guy, they're watering it down. if they do it that way, the Alpha should be the same and the only difference would be Rate of Fire/Spread/Heat Gen ect. Maybe that's their plan. who knows. S1 Cannon could be same size round for a S2 repeater ect.

[@RegisBladeStudios]

how much power you put to engines should affect your turn/maneuver rate, simple

[@aguspuig6615]

hm but that would make balancing so complicated, like a ships turn rate is probably its biggest factor, being able to change that on the fly? seems like everyone would just always stay at max turn rate, only changing the power to recharge weapons or shields. I personally like it being just a faster boost recharge

[@knok2222]

its not easy for any new dev to come into a project full of garbage code and be passionate. So when you get one... keep them happy.

[@keldornify]

why do racing ships need guns at all?

[@williamlewis1805]

Do NOT unify all ship gun ammo….. at least keep it different per weapon size. Otherwise that is WAY too simple.

[@NegativeProcess]

Yeah, I mean how would a size 5 do more damage than a size 3 if its the exact same bullet lol

[@First_Chapter]

Vest. One of the many words in UK English that refer to something different than in US English...

[@xredrum41x]

Balancing is selling new ships. -CIG

[@Dominus-Noctis]

Instead of overdoing the payout on bounties in the future i think a free reload as a bonus would be a cool idea

[@swiftbow2110]

Yea, Jared should be like the Star Citizen news caster. This is why he has the fancy studio, right… Keep the news coming.

[@derjadebaum9159]

- Ammo only one or so sort of boxes, very nice, is good enough. At least for sizes 1-5, above is open for discussion, but making reloading available sounds good. But what is with ships without cargo, not possible? During flight, not possible? Or is it only for when a small ship gets refilled by a bigger ship? - Ballance, well the idea seems nice, but what they say and their actions don't match up. Intentional imbalance when needed for ship sales, that matches ;) - Mocking someone sticking to SC and this scummy company deserves a thankful gesture and not unprofessional behaviour. jared is on business not in his free time.

[@TheCosmicNihilist]

I am Glad they know exactly what they want to achieve now but being in Open Development how about a lil love and share that Vision with us? Closed Development games tend to share that Vision at the Pitch.

[@polblanes]

Racing ships should have no guns, no QT and no shields. They should be completely optimized for the race you're doing. In fact, what they should probably do is make components change the weight of the ship and affect their stats. Making people that use ships for racing want to remove the guns and all components they don't need. And if those components are on the ship, they can do combat but they're worse than interceptors and fighters at it.

[@amaimonakihiko1582]

This might be a hot take, but For racing, why not remove all weapons from racers? If they are so concerned about them out-performing fighters, just make them unable to kill anything. The Mirai Fury Lx has no weapons, so why not the rest?

[@amaimonakihiko1582]

As for the races with weapons.. Make those in lawless systems. Make them reputation based illeagal kits which you would be fined with in a lawful system