Server Meshing Breakthrough & 4.0 Is Coming | Last Week In The Verse

[@Hav0k]

🚀 What are your thoughts on the latest Star Citizen updates? 🚀 Do you think server meshing is finally on the right track? What about the Corsair nerf-fair adjustment or too much? Let me know your thoughts below! 👇 Also, don’t forget to enter the Drake Cutter Spooky Starter Pack giveaway-details in the video! 🎃 If you enjoyed this episode, consider joining the channel as a member to support future content and unlock exclusive perks!

[@TheGaryinWales]

I agree with you about the Corsair. They could have reduced the size of guns instead of taking them from pilot control. The whole design was that the pilot having gun control was it's bonus, it didn't get a med bed like the Carrack. If they are going to nerf it without making up for other drawbacks it just worse overall. As for jump points getting tedious over time. They should resist the urge to change it. In Eve, travel is tedious. But it adds to the feeling of size. Jumping to a new system should take an amount of time. It should be an intentional choice.

[@Nemoticon]

I agree with the MFD/HUD changes... they look great stylistically, but their information management has a lot to be desrired. The new MFDs have no continuity in how each screen is navigated and displays the relevant data needed, easily and quickly. And the new HUD simply isn't a HUD, just extention tabs of the MFDs hovering around the screens and not sitting around the focal area of your vision, right in front of your face. This desperate needs a rework, imo and they actually need to get an experienced pilot in to give them advice onhow to arrange the HUG, what data to where and to confirm if it actually works or not in practice. I very rarely complain about SC, but i do feel strongly about this because it is essential to operating your ship, ALL ships from the pilot seat!!

[@Hav0k]

It's honestly kinda bizarre to me how we keep losing really important info with stuff that we really need. I would rather the HUD and MFDs provide a ton of information rather than have them be less cluttered.

[@Fuar11]

There is an option to move some of the holographic HUD to the center of the screen. I'm not sure if it's enough though

[@Nemoticon]

@@Fuar11 I'll chck that out for sure, ty

[@Nemoticon]

@@Hav0k Exactly. Putting that much effort into something, only to get the basic data handling part of it wrong, which is just bad graphic design, visual communicaton and typography in general... it two steps forward, one step back! This is a basic, well explored part of basic design, they shouldn't be getting it wrong, nail the fundamentals 1st time around, focus on aesthetics after if need be!!

[@Hav0k]

@@Fuar11 yeah I'm not sure it's enough tbh

[@laduzitv5019]

i like last week in the verse. been looking for someone like salte and macbro! make sure to put this video on the top of ur playlist hehe

[@Hav0k]

I'm glad you enjoy this news series. I'll definitely keep it up as much as I can each week. 🙂

[@matuto1986]

Great video! Bumping up for the algo! I understand the Corsair nerf, but I also feel like they missed on where to adjust. I know everyone`s got their own take on this (and a lot of ppl will disagree with me on this), but I'd assume it would make more sense to: Reduce all 6 pilot controlled weapons to size 3's Buff the 3x2 turrets to size 4's If we don't significantly buff turrets, we'll always be in this scenario that's always better to bring more ships than bringing more ppl in the same ship. And yes, give more roles to the co-pilot!

[@Hav0k]

Glad you enjoyed the video! I appreciate your comment! I think if I was to ignore armor coming in 4.0, I'd agree with you. But if certain size weapons were ineffective against certain levels of armor, then it might nerf it too much.

[@gigarott]

6:39 Agreed, I was looking for my ammo count and couldn't find it.

[@addermoth]

Would like to remind people not to get too excited about 4.0 releasing anytime soon. The tests we did in EVO were primarily the jump point tech along with the borders of meshing and a first time stability test. Most of the new 'features' of 4.0 were 'switched' off. Thought there were a nice few things to experience like new fauna. We are quite away from it dropping guys. Much testing still to be done even before it reaches PTU

[@Hav0k]

I appreciate the comment! I'm definitely not trying to hype anyone up that it's gonna drop soon. But I would be lying if I didn't say I'm pretty excited that we'll be seeing it at some point.

[@gigahappytown]

Glad that attention is being payed to small things too. It all adds up.

[@eltreum1]

They have definitely been making some progress. I love the wormhole travel myself, but I can see some getting tired of it. The time probably won't change much because of a technical reason. The replication layer appears to be sharded so there is one rep layer cache for Stanton with a pool of DGSs and another cache for Pyro with its own DGS pool so they can each talk to many players and servers at the same time without maxing out their system bus even if everyone goes to one system so they will have some overhead room eventually. That allows steadier response latency because the CPU and RAM aren't max taxed 24/7 which makes any application server painful to use. The purpose of the WH is to prevent data corruption because they need a way to isolate the player and park their data on the Stanton cache and perfectly mirror it to the Pyro cache before you can join. I thought initially the tunnel would be some randomized loop chunks that could dynamically end itself when it was ready, but it seems the tunnel length is fixed so if the other side is not ready for you yet when you get there it breaks your session in a failed session transfer. That is my guess based on my data center systems knowledge with other cloud apps and MMOs I have worked with in the past. The way they handled the Corsair was unintuitive for sure, but the design of the ship leaves only rough choices to balance it. If they reduced its guns to S4 then everyone would demand the Constellation lose its pilot S5s. Because of the shape of the ship they could have those lower 2 guns come down a little on that round section like a turn table and allow it to rotate 360 then you cold gang it with the other 360 turret on top the same way the Herc C2 gangs the 2 turrets. You can camera from either and if both turrets can hit the target they fire. That would have made it much more useful than what they had before and now. Like all ships its journey to its final form is not over yet.

[@Hav0k]

Honestly, I think I'll probably end up enjoying jump points most of the time. You're definitely right about the replication layer seemingly being split as sometimes Pyro will crash and recover, where Stanton was unaffected. I would bet that it does improve the response. For all intents and purpose, the Jump Point is basically a loading screen. So that makes sense why it exists and it does a really solid job at separating two different locations really well by offering gameplay. And yeah, I agree with you on the Corsair. But I do see them walking back that decision and finding a better solution!

[@T4RC]

I really hope that the introduction of Server meshing to the game will start the process of ironing out all the rubber banding and networking issues currently present in the game. They always said, that the reason for these problems was the fact that the entire system was simulated by one server. Hope this will change things, as I am not willing to play right now.

[@Hav0k]

Yeah, it definitely should. But they also have to optimize their network and server performance by refining the shard configuration. Eventually, once they've worked out the kinks, we should have a clearer view of what the performance will look like. But even with 500 players on 4 servers, the performance is pretty impressive.

[@mabutoo]

Spending a few minutes in gateways seems like nothing for a game that can have you spending over an hour loading cargo.

[@Hav0k]

I agree. But I do think cargo will slowly be balanced over time so that it doesn't take that long. A lot has changed over the years. It's all a balancing act.

[@Fluke2SS]

The problem is it becomes monotonous. And the way Jump points work its not something you can AFK through. You have to pilot your way through it in real time otherwise you get thrown out of the jump point tunnel in some random area in space.

[@Hav0k]

@@Fluke2SS i get it. But we knew that this was what they were intending since the beginning when they first talked about it

[@MrCabbage-qz2vd]

@@Fluke2SS yeah they could bring us in the middle of knowhere, like in the middle of 2 star systems. but I know many players would not want that so they instead bring us back to our own starsystem when the jump fails.

[@mokane86]

@@Fluke2SSone of the gameplay loops I’m most looking forward to is navigating and mapping jump point wormhole paths to sell. Since the paths are supposed to change gradually and mapping them for marketable data is supposed to be a thing some day 😂. Maybe if you purchase a pathway map of recent enough creation you can shorten or autopilot a safe route…

[@arkekklesia]

I do hope they would prioritize on issues. specifically stability and hardware. Not all players have top of the line hardware that can run SC on a stable 60fps. heck make that 30. anyway, Thanks for keeping us updated!

[@Hav0k]

Totally agree! I think the first implementation of DLSS has helped. But we need DLSS with frame generation, vulkan multithreading, and better optimization. I'm glad I'm able to keep you all up to date!

[@arkekklesia]

@@Hav0k or FSR for that matter, they should continue Ironing it out. because gonna be honest, one of the massive turn off for gamers are the inconsistencies in game. it ruins the immersion for a game that's made for immersion.

[@Hav0k]

@@arkekklesia Agreed! Although I think that might come down to just simple optimization. For example, I've noticed my FPS is much worse with certain settings enabled. Like Vsync.

[@o0neill]

Very nice and calm way of talking. Liked and subbed :)

[@damienspectre4231]

Avocados - Do a good job in testing this! This is teh BIG one

[@Hav0k]

Agreed! If I had access, I'd be testing it like crazy

[@BobWobbles]

With the MFD's it might just be case of getting used to them. It's amazing what the practice effect can achieve.

[@Hav0k]

True story! And I'm sure i will get used to them. It might be a simple case of being in a slight echo chamber. But there are areas where I think there could be room for improvement. Personally, I'm use to information overload from sims like DCS and even from systems I'm use to using in the army.

[@noctis_actual]

Well done.

[@Fluke2SS]

One thing that should be stipulated about the EVO test of 4.0. 4 DGS and 100 player shards. Hence no interaction delay. Ramp that up to 8 DGS and 1000 players and you are back to square one. There is still a lot of work to do on Server Meshing. Furthermore, Client ping times fluctuate drastically. For example: Normally I ping 42ms, but my ping times ranged from 42ms to 900ms at any given second during these tests. I was not even able to get to the 4.0 test at all despite me trying to do so. Ultimately the 4.0 test was a 2-3 hour session specifically to test out Jump Points in a 4 DGS 100 player shard setup. Don't read more into the test than what is there. Here is the current status for Evocati test of 4.0: (Tuesday) We are currently putting together a new 3.24.2 build for release onto the PTU later today Current goal is to have another timed 4.0 Evocati Playtest on Wednesday this week. (Tomorrow)

[@Hav0k]

I mean, if they stick to 4 DGS and 100 players that will be fine until they're able to refine it more. The 500 player 4 DGSs operated pretty well as well in comparison. At least during the test on the shard i was on last week. But I get what you're saying. As mentioned, I'm not trying to hype anyone up, but simply sharing my excitement that there's movement now.

[@vik12D]

Star Citizen reminds me of the Army, promising a 3 day pass for reenlisting that you never get. I hope 4.0 is near, but I'll believe it when I'm in my Polaris, flying through Pyro.

[@jehg82]

and that is one of the reasons i got a DD214

[@vik12D]

@@jehg82 lol

[@Hav0k]

🤣😅 Accurate. The abusive relationship we keep going back to.

[@Tarack1]

Nah, the army would promise you 4.0 and then once you've signed up, they'll give you 2.0 Port Olisar and tell you to shut your mouth and be grateful.

[@Hav0k]

@@Tarack1 also accurate lol

[@BakedafPotato]

MFDs are being considered to be usable solo, but efficient with a crew or a copilot. The game is moving to crew work. You can now control power from most terminals, something you couldn't do it before. Also, unfortunately, no matter what they do, someone won't like it. It's just the way the world works

[@Hav0k]

They absolutely are adding a lot more for crew work, which is great. But I'd really like just a bit more info and control in some areas. One example I'd give is making it so you don't have to aim directly at your target in order to scan them. Which might be what they intend. Currently the MFD seems to indicate that you can scan a target, but the functionality might not be in just yet.

[@2panzur]

Weekend in the US. Starts at 3am Saturday morning. End of citizen con then work. Sleep early and avoid the eye rolls from my wife. Rinse repeat since of course deployment part 2 is on Sunday.

[@Hav0k]

🤣😅 sounds about right. Sadly, I'll be heading off to work around the time it really kicks off.

[@Sephiroth1550]

On the Corsair, the players bought it because of the firepower. They are effectively taking away part of what people bought without reimbursement.

[@Hav0k]

This is true. But I think they went to the extreme on the balance part of it. The nerf would have gone over better if they reduced the weapon sizes. If someone truly bought it for the firepower, they couldo easily melt it and get something else.

[@Sephiroth1550]

@@Hav0k 100 percent agree. Even just dropping the capacitor would have done a lot.

[@Frank-os6gq]

They dont need to reimburse anybody, it was a pledge to support the game and the ship was your reward. You can melt the ship and continue to test new ships. You agreed to and read this when you bought the ship.

[@Hav0k]

@Frank-os6gq yeah I agree. There wouldn't/shouldn't be a reimbursement. Players can melt it for another ship. Until they find it buffed again.

[@Terragon99]

everything is subjekt to change ... maybe dont buy something with real money when you cant handle the fact .. they could also just get rid of the weapons instead of giving them to the copilot..

[@siriusscepter]

Good video HavOk

[@Hav0k]

Glad you enjoyed the video!

[@durtyred86]

Don't forget the fact that they now have it to where the Corsair is even more vulnerable now that the remote turret seat can be taken, but not used.... What I find odd is how hard they hit against a pilot in a ship after a year or so, but fighters, for almost a decade, have been able to rip up ships 10x their size... With no response. Now I still expect this to be answered but I can't ignore the fact that you can take a snub fighter, or any fighter really, and obliterate a ship larger than a Freelancer. I get why they did it. So pkayers could enjoy the game at a cheap price. Right. We're now entering the next phase. And the growth pangs should be seen across the board. Not the usual 'we f*cking hate solo players' do this or get wrecked mentality... Bringing the right tool for the job needs to be established. Be it fighters, bombers, multi-crew ships or otherwise. Until then, it's going to be a bit of a sh*t show with their current choice of actions. I agree with you, the Corsair needed some changes. But of all the dumb choices to pick....They really scraped the bottom of the barrel for this one. And it honestly makes me a bit concerned.. This idea should never have never made it out of the breakroom......

[@Hav0k]

You're absolute right! That turret adds another issue to the ship. As far as how things currently work with fighters taking down larger ships, i really am hoping that armor and engineering changes that dynamic a lot. I think fighters should really struggle with taking down larger ships and should be almost ineffective at taking down capital ships alone. I actually talked about this in my recent video of Master Modes and Ship roles. If you haven't already, I'd encourage anyone who hasn't seen it to check it out. I think there isn't too much to be concerned about though. I think they'll listen to the feedback, we just need to be sure to provide good, constructive feedback about why this change doesn't make sense, and offer other possible solutions.

[@arrclyde4325]

As a Corsair pilot myself i don't have any problems with the changes to the Corsair. First of all: why do people think the copilot has this extremely complex mechanisim that positions him under the pilot above the bottom guns for an unobstructed view? So he can remote control a remote turret on the back? Its not a nerf, and it makes sense. But i guess people have to see it first hand when ship combat is not only about hitting big ship hulls, but more about hitting tiny components with with prescission. I for one will change the loadout: if i am just using it myself, i take of the lower 2 guns to make potential repair costs smaller. If someone is my copilot or my pilot, the lower guns will be ballistic cannons for high precission strikes on the pilots target.

[@Hav0k]

Yeah I suppose that could make sense. I appreciate the insight with a different perspective.

[@arrclyde4325]

@@Hav0k if you look at the concept the lower guns were arranged under something that looks like a turret but they had to change the hight if the ships landing gear because the folded up wings were to talö for the hangars. At that time the Connie was locked to the lower guns being size 4 max as size 5 were also lower than the landing gear. So at this time, pilots of both ships had the same guns at hand: 2 size 5 and 2 size 4. The difference was that the Corsair had a copilot that had an addition 2 size 5 guns. Its not the end of the world, and i am sure that with engineering gameplay and the removal of hull hp, it will make a lot more sense.

[@Hav0k]

@@arrclyde4325 yeah you're right about that. It still could work. They just need to do it better and not give the copilot the controls imo.

[@arrclyde4325]

@@Hav0k but that us better. The pilot fires energy weapons ath the targets shield. The copilot uses precission mode and targets the same targets components. I find it pretty amusing that people think they will take down ships as easy as they do now when ship HP is gone and you have to actually hut the same small spot consustently. Not just anywhere on a ship. But hey, if it pisses people off so much, i am not mad about them melting their Cirsair, because they lack understanding. I am keeping mine. And when 4.0 comes around i'll be much faster at taking down ships with a second person than anyone in a Conny. If people do not see the direction and possibilities of a copilot haveing access to the lower 2 size 5 guns, they have a actual lack of understanding where CIG wants to go with ship battles.

[@Hav0k]

@@arrclyde4325 Don't get me wrong, as I stated in the video, I think that with you choosing to have your ship crewed, you should be far more deadly than someone without crew.

[@aso6437]

Gaming with multi crew members this is a rare thing.. Hard to get friends all on at the same time. Generally plays are solo. They should be the focus.

[@Hav0k]

Gaming with multi crew ships is rare because there's no reason and no gameplay for them to really be encouraged to have crew. The idea that one group of people should be focused on is a pretty terrible approach. There are tons of players that want to play with other people. Most of the people in my org, for example, really want to play with others and also have multi crew ships offer multiple different roles onboard the ship. They want the that Star Trek experience in many ways. I think both styles of gameplay need to be focused on.

[@dex6147]

Tried to clear my CS at Kareah yesterday. All the desync made it impossible. SC is not worth playing at the moment.

[@DaringDan]

I'm more of the mind that 4.0 being in EVO is so Chris can stand on that stage and say 4.0 is live. This isn't a jab. I'm basing it off of last year at CitizenCon when they released the Pyro jump gates and had the F8 event. It's all publicity.

[@addermoth]

You may be right however it was the most 'stable' EVO build I have tested for the first iteration. I am sure they could have released this to EVO at a much earlier date. I imagine the Cargo refactor and meshing needed more time to be ironed out first and hence was focused on.

[@Hav0k]

I get it. But most of us will clap back with a "it's not live actually." 4.0 being released in Q4 won't count unless it goes to live before the year is over.

[@DaringDan]

@@Hav0k It won't stop Chris from doing it. I got lambasted last year for suggesting those Pyro ring gates would be just as inoperable this year as last year. Until CIG prove me wrong, this is more of the same.

[@addermoth]

@@Hav0k lol, rightly so. Chris is big with his promises, he did say try though, and they are trying believe me. The Devs have been working hard the last few weeks but I'd wager it will be PTU by the end of the year. You never know though Miracles sometimes happen. Oh and by they way. It sounds amazing in Pyro and it almost feels like a new game.

[@Hav0k]

@@addermoth We'll see. I hope we do get it this year. I'm anxious.

[@eoconnor2000]

The handling of the Corsair nerf by CIG raises concerns about their regard for backers. As a Corsair owner, I bought it for multiplayer use but often play solo due to the game's state. The issue is less about the nerf itself and more about the lack of communication and execution. The change, which was mistaken for a bug, moved control of the guns to the copilot, making them less effective. This was done two years after purchase, catching buyers off-guard. A better approach would have been to either downgrade all the guns or make them turrets. While we understand the game is in alpha, spending $300 on a ship warrants better communication regarding changes.

[@Hav0k]

I get the concern. I don't share the same concerns, but i care enough about other backers that are losing some important parts of a ship they bought years ago. I think that they'll probably switch it back and find another solution if we continue to provide good, constructive feedback.

[@LucidStrike]

It was communicated about in the Q&A from the concept sell, but it's not like those posts are prominently integrated into the sales page.

[@Hav0k]

@@LucidStrike yeah that's true. And that's probably something they really should do.

[@atrum_eversor5022]

Despite the big guns, Corsair and Connie still get smoked by single seat fighters even when fully crewed...so they don't need nerfs yet. Maybe once they actually manage to balance multi crew ships to be good at something besides dying.

[@Hav0k]

Well, given that armor is coming in 4.0... they just may become much harder to kill.

[@atrum_eversor5022]

@@Hav0k We can hope!

[@gigahappytown]

6:43 Me too

[@sidewithwerewolves]

The new huds are as annoying to learn the details and quirks that the old one had. Once you learn where the ui wants you to look. Same thing with the old ui. multicrew should have it easier for all the mfd data as co-pilots take over managing and reading the data from mgds and radar up to marking targets for the pilot and any turrets.

[@Hav0k]

Yeah, i wish they'd go back to the HUD design from years ago where there was a lot of really useful information. They need to get back to it. What we have now is not acceptable in my honest opinion.

[@Goyahkla100]

No Merc and Bounty contract fixes......the things that players do every day!!!

[@Hav0k]

Supposedly, we won't need them really fixed once the mission refactor is completely finished. But we'll see.

[@paratrooperz1]

i really like your corsair idea but i would say this ship need more up gunning i think the pilot should get 6 size 4s the top and bottom turret should be duel size 4s and the side turrets should be quad size 2s a mini hammer head... if you want to promote multi crew game do not give your crew smaller guns than pilot.... i think the retaliator needs to replace all its guns from size 4s into quad size 3s all other ships should have turrets as big or bigger than pilot but it its combat role ship the pilot should have access to as many or more guns than all the gunners but all turets need to be same size. everyone loves to climb in a hammerhead but to be a gunner in most other ships knowing you have 2 of the smallest ship guns when i could fly my own ship with 4 guns

[@Hav0k]

That could work too. I think armor could factor into the balance aspect without really nerfing the ships too much.

[@0Metatron]

You only have to look for stuff on the hid because it’s new and you’re not used to it. All the same info is still there

[@Hav0k]

It's really not. There is no g force direction indicator, the HUD do not clearly indicate how many missiles are set to fire, and the information for speed is not directly in line with your vision, which makes it all feel barren. And the MFDs don't actually offer a lot of information and instead kinda offer less.

[@dex6147]

HUD got replaced with HDD

[@seedwordlight]

The Corsair has a list of fire power, but it handles like a pig. You can’t leverage the guns if you can’t get them on target. That’s the nerf…

[@AgnosiaAgnosis]

@@seedwordlight meh

[@TheStumafoo]

I remember being all exited for the patches.. citizen-con.. all I got 11 years later is a $2700.00 spent.. and nothing to show for it!! I wanna cry

[@101Sektor]

Dont give them another cent, no matter what!

[@hawkzulu5671]

Smart money waited 11 years and THEN backed the game. What did they have back then - a hangar you can walk in and look at the super - nintendo looking ship model sitting there?

[@richardcharlesworth2020]

I wouldn’t say you have nothing to show for it. We have a fully functioning game that is pretty amazing. Though certainly not close to what has been promised, there is still tangible value there.

[@evemaniac]

Why wanna cry?I had a lot of very funny moments with a lot of nice and not so nice people, Very good and very bad experiances all along, but if its worth the money is a thing what everybody of us has to decide themself in regards to anything we buy. What is the alternative? Buying here and there into the next AAA Game and geting dissapointed allmost every single time not to mention Lootboxes day one content behind paywalls...the sad truth is realy good games have become unicorns wich apear once a year if you are lucky and if that gane fits within your prefered genre. I keep supporting my dream game even if it can pop like a bubble anytime.

[@sisquack]

I’d be far far more interested in the game working as is, over new features that will take 6 patches to fix.

[@beardedbarnstormer9577]

Its funny to see people that have never used a hud in real life complain about them. Fyi 90% of people put the hud too high up in the visual field. Reality is gagues are below the sightline and the hud is lower center of the sight picture for fighter style aircraft. In commercial the hud is in the upper middle portion of the sight picture. Makes sense. One is focused on landing the other looking out for bogies

[@Hav0k]

As someone with actual real world experience, i can attest that I've used a HUD and various military systems and user interfaces in my career in the Army. So I actually understand what it means to provide the user vital information that is easily accessible, as oftentimes combat is dependent on the lives of others. The argument is that information is much harder to read and less readily available when needed. Yes, implementing more focus on practice does change this, but if things become too convoluted, it leads to mistakes. In the real world, in the military specifically, information that is out of eyesight, such as the angle of attack, and altitude ladder that shows closure rates to the the terrain altitude and also closure rate to target, are prime examples of that vital information.

[@beardedbarnstormer9577]

@@Hav0k don't disagree at all. I actually like your take on it. It's mostly comments that are off base. When the Barf of nav icons was removed in ptu everyone lost it and I was happy the sight picture was finally clean. I'm all for more in the hud but it needs to be useful. Too many people want a glass panel on the windshield, folks that would be shocked to see most cockpits have pretty much nothing in front of you looking out when talking about most bubble canopy fighters. Helicopters are another bag I'll give you that. Loved riding in them but had mad respect for rotor wing pilots, the stuff yall have to deal with is nuts.

[@Hav0k]

Ah. My bad. I took that as a jab at my gripes with it. My apologies for the defensive response. I agree. The info in the HUD does need to be useful info. It's not a bunch of irrelevant info. I see the declutter of QT markers as a positive one, but it also doesn't help when you want to jump. Now, it kinda forces you to use the Starmap. But once Quantum Boost is in, it may not matter. Personally, I'm not a rotary wing pilot. I'm actually in the process of becoming a fixed wing pilot. But a HUD is still used. The civilian Beechcraft I've been flying has during my licensing process has one. It's pretty amazing. I agree, though. Certain things needed decluttering. And the QT nav points were absolutely one of those things.

[@PandaGaming-pc2xv]

They just gatta make repeaters better theres no reason to use them ever

[@Hav0k]

With armor coming in 4.0, I'm hoping they lean into make weapons different enough that warrants a reason to choose one over another in certain situations.

[@machoalright]

corsair nerf was not really a nerf. most people who complain just use it as an single seater. iam actually glad they kinda move away from that. 4.0 servermeshing was great, was a pretty good for a first try to be honest. I dont think the travel wont be so tedious. its like you have to fly trough it. Its pretty good. its not you sitting back and watch the "cinematic"

[@Hav0k]

I mean it was honestly a bit of a nerf. Now the ship requires a copilot to fire the other 2 forward facing guns. Which honestly doesn't make sense. But I agree on the topics of server meshing and jump points. Server meshing was pretty great and is very promising and I personally think Jump Points will be fun and exciting every time. So I'm for it.

[@machoalright]

@@Hav0k if it was a nerf, its a very minor one. not as much as the nerf on the redeemer or the 400i. those are nerfs.. the corsair... not so much.

[@D.Enniss]

lmao you're complaining about the new MFDs because you're not used to them yet, you don't know where to look because we were used to the old ones, play more, get used to them, and you'll know where to look for all your "critical" information XD

[@Hav0k]

Not sure if you missed it, but I explicitly stated how a lot of the critical information is not readily available and in front of us, and we're forced to look longer than a split second to find what we need. Some of us just want a bit more information than what is displayed. I'm not sure why that's a bad thing.