STAR CITIZEN, MASTER MODES DEVS BACKPEDALING, but...thats good right?

[@NozomuYume]

"We saw new players flying at the station and thinking 'they're not going to be able to brake in time'". Well, yeah that's called learning to control your vehicle. It's the ability to get yourself into that situation that also makes the flying interesting. It's the same way when playing a racing game and new players just slam down the accelerator and crash and explode their car on the first turn. You learn pretty quick not to do that. If you put in endless safeguards and bubblewrap you're not really in control of your vehicle anymore.

[@halometroid]

My first day in SC (nov 2023), it was all about crashing into space station, and low gravity planets. As a spaceship nerf I quickly understood to not aim at stations, slow the f down and don't dive dull speed on a low grave planet.

[@acethemain7776]

if CIG developed a racing game they would make wallriding faster so that new players don't get turned off

[@Fennek_Kaipii]

Yea, I was able to, no problems, now I use the switch from NAV to SCM, as a lazy heavy space brake, to arrive at target even faster than before xD

[@Bluespaceboat]

@@Fennek_Kaipii this! It’s so immersion breaking.

[@Anonymous-m9f9j]

@@acethemain7776 this comment so perfectly captures the essence of master modes lol.

[@SnatchTease]

i miss spacestation ramming speeds... you do it a couple times and then learn not to aim directly at the station. fast landing gear movement was dope too

[@bigjohnnyxl6666]

You can still get fast landing gear movement , turn of precision mode in configuration mfd

[@1aatlas]

You know you can turn off the landing gear limiter though right?

[@amineabdz]

​@@1aatlasHad no idea, In some ways, It's great that I have the choice now, but tbh I find it useful. I hate that the breaking speed is immersion breaking, I would have loved if deploying the landing gear just slows you down using the space break speed

[@Traumglanz]

Me too. But hey, I can still hit them with Nav Mode, right?

[@Demonic-i9j]

You are the guy that likes everything that harms you as much a possible.

[@Anonymous-m9f9j]

It wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if the delay in SQ42 and the distinct lack of “sq42 tech and assets” coming to the PU is largely due to MM landing like a steaming dog shit in the community. You can even see people like saltemike changing his tune recently on MM after people realise it’s not getting better like they said. Explains why they haven’t iterated as promised either. What a total waste of time.

[@Vorm17]

If only they actually were tuning and updating MM the complaints may be fixable. But so far CIG haven't seemed to iterate and update it at all and that is where my personal frustration lies. I can "see" what they are trying to do, and I don't mind it and actually may like it. But without them actually working on fixing the obvious issues put out by the community this can easily kill the game, and is on its way to do so.

[@Harry_potter_the_1st]

@@Vorm17 Man you can say that about the previous flight model where they didn't try to make it work, but just changed the flight model like they are doing now.

[@Vorm17]

@@Harry_potter_the_1st Well, can't disagree with you there! You're 100% correct that they could have done some different things to test to try and fix the previous model and didn't do it.

[@TenSevenTN]

It’s only been a decade. Concepting basic game mechanics at this point is fiiiiiine.

[@Kyle-sr6jm]

Once you have seen it, you will spot it every time afterwards. 'What can I say that is not going to lose me credibility, while selling the project, and not pissing off the boss' They are no longer passionately describing the game system, they are trying to sell what they know is BS and keep their paycheck.

[@dimitripinto4747]

“I’m not an upset person” “MIXED REVIEWS??!!!” 😂

[@Cain3697]

Perhaps "upset" was too tame of a word 😂

[@thomasinlondon2849]

@@dimitripinto4747 mixed reviews was ripe from CIG, as a lot of the “reviews” of mm on spectrum got sealed off..

[@Babushka_Bob]

Thats not being "upset". To me thats being surprised or astonished.

[@_Kaurus]

It's amazing that you're literally telling these devs what they Have to do to make flying fun, and they don't listen. I literally stopped playing when they dropped Master modes because it destroyed every single good feeling I had when doing anything flying and to me Flying was the single best thing in star citizen.

[@Anonymous-m9f9j]

Me too i absolutely detest this janky ass speed wall and space drag shit its comedic.

[@cdgonepotatoes4219]

​​@@Anonymous-m9f9j"space drag" and speed limits aren't fundamentally bad even for a sci-fi game that tries to be more on the side of realism than an arcade. What it needs is a little more depth and users need to be given the ability to have more control over it. My ideal flight model would allow me to anchor my ship's relative position to an object of choice, or an automatically determined object if I haven't specified one. The flight controller would then try and normalize my relative velocity to the object and set a speed limit, both of which I can toggle off by disabling flight control. With this flight model, sensor profile and targeting strength would become quite important as a player with flight control turned on could anchor to and keep pace with an enemy ship with flight control turned off. Ships with powerful scanners won't be just seen as a missile magnet but they will have a tradeoff of being able to lock their flight computer to and intercept stealthier crafts. Small fighters with a lower "speed limiter" than a bigger, faster ship could still successfully escort said faster ship by locking their flight computers to it and get "carried off", and at any time they can set a new anchor or return to the default and have the ship automatically accelerate or decelerate to that new one.

[@l3lackoutsMedia]

Someone like Avenger one has to be in charge of decision making for things like this to create a great experience efficiently.

[@notoriouspc]

@@l3lackoutsMedia No one person should be in complete control of anything imo. Especially when they have such specialized views.

[@l3lackoutsMedia]

@@notoriouspc You get a garbled mess if too many people make decisions.

[@Cocaina92]

Update to anyone thats interested: John Pritchett has been hired by the devs of X4 and is working towards a flight model for that game. It may not be star citizen, but it could be a nice alternative for many of us.

[@cdgonepotatoes4219]

"Hited"? You mean they "hit up" the other dev, talked to one another and discussed flight models? No offense, just trying to understand. I wouldn't want the exact same model from X4, just some pointers taken from it, but it does sound like a decent idea. Basically keep the two master modes being normal movement and a travel mode that's slow to activate, has slow acceleration and can be disabled by gunfire, have the ability to regulate thrust and toggle flight control in both, then last but most importantly have the ability to choose which object your ships adjusts its relative velocity to. What I wouldn't want taken from X4 are space "friction" (or the ability to toggle it) and the global speed limit. Turning off flight assist shouldn't just return full pitch control but also allow to go beyond the ship's speed limiter, and with flight assist turned on you should be able to escort a bigger and faster ship by anchoring your ship's flight control to it or an enemy fighter with flight assist off, so flight control is viable and whoever chooses to use it isn't seen as in a disadvantage.

[@gr_egg]

​@@cdgonepotatoes4219he obviously meant hired

[@Liopleurodon]

Its actually kinda funny as X4 had something siumilar to MM for the last five years (since its release) Now they may likely adapt the old SC model I played X4 and to be true still love the game for what it is, but I sticked with SC because of its improved flight model, before they came up with MM and then when MM came, I revisited X4 more again... history has a funny way to play out sometimes

[@Gofr5]

Losing John Pritchett was the worst thing that happened to SC. His physics wizardry was beyond what anyone else could do. The project will go on, but his loss will lead to a lower quality product than what we could have had. Alas....

[@TheWorldsprayer]

ive played the x series for close to 20 years. its a great game. not star citizen so dont think its a replacement, but its amazing.

[@StarfieldSkunkworks]

I am more confused by their answer . Its like saying they will change it while saying that they will not .

[@LarsArt]

Basically they know it sucks and has no fix but for some reason (management, sunk cost, not changing S42 completely, etc) they are only going to keep doing minor tweaks in hopes it ends up somehow fun.

[@damaddmann]

That is exactly where I’m at with this everything they said, made absolutely no sense to me at all like what was the entire point of master mode if you’re going to crank up the speed and then give the weapons back essentially we go back to having the same problem, we have where people are just flying to get awaythe game right now that people can fly away from me how bad the lag is

[@explorer47422]

They didn't explain it well but it's basically this: We're going back to what we had before MM with 2 changes: addition of QB but charging it disables shields, like QT does (and cant fire weapons once engaged, identical to now), and the highest top speed of that particular ship (formerly only accessible in nav mode) will be capped and dependent on ship tier and component quality, but you don't need to be in a particular mode to access it. That's all. The highest tier ship with highest quality components will be able to attain top speeds approaching that seen in current Nav modes, but without the need to 'switch' and no restriction to shield or weapon use.

[@HitmannDDD]

I don't use precision mode at all in a fighter due to the loss of situational awareness. They need to rip off mechwarrior's zoom for precision mode. The zoom feature opens a box in the middle of your screen that takes up ~ 1/4 of the screen, giving a 2-8x magnification but doesn't kill your situational awareness because you still have the normal 1x periphery to view the HUD and instruments. In gimbal mode, this could follow your mouse. In fixed mode, it would stay centered.

[@ahumeniy]

I use precision mode to target people on the ground and use it quickly to target individual components/parts of bigger ships and immediately go back to normal mode. The PIP gets adjusted for the sub-target so you don't have to use precision mode all the time.

[@HitmannDDD]

@@ahumeniy yeah I've used it for targeting ground units while hovering, but rarely in s2s combat.

[@danielekirylo]

This is so obvious, I don't understand why CIG doesn't get it.

[@HitmannDDD]

@@danielekirylo one of two reasons. 1.) Those designing the feature don't actually play the game, or that aspect of the game enough to understand why it's practically useless as a fighter in those use cases. 2.) Chris micromanages the feature with his "cinematic vision" and chooses form > function and either noone is willing to speak up, or he simply overrides the objections. Perhaps the drawback of loss of situational awareness is a good tradeoff in his opinion?

[@mikalemadden1762]

There's so much that they could have "borrowed" from MechWarrior. Weapon groups, heat management, the damage model, etc. It's the perfect example of a simulation game that's fun in both PvE and PvP and is still cinematic, all the things that Star Citizen is trying to be. Hell, there're some things I wish they would have copied from Elite Dangerous and other space games, as well. But of course, we all know CIG can't help but reinvent the wheel (in a worse way).

[@sethwillerton5667]

I play tarkov which i think is a comparable game in terms of the devs not listening or doing weird stuff and permanent beta type game getting funding - but tarkov recently added (FINALLY) a polling system in game. I think CIG needs to add a polling system or engaging in the community, having open discussions with actual players/streamers who know lots about the game (you for example), and openly answering questions to reduce things like this, spending years of resources and money making a system that overall gets revised/reversed anyways. Would love if you got to have direct conversations with CIG and convince them or have them shed light on design choices to answer all our questions. Great video!

[@Flufficatfish]

When A1 got to the "MIXED REVIEWS?!" I knew this was going to be a great react

[@The_Diginaut]

"One cohesive speed" like they have a new fucking idea 🤯 shoot me please

[@TarkisRai]

My biggest concern is that the "no shields yes weapons during quantum" will completely screw over solo non-combat players. Buddy in a Prospector will *never* be able to escape a fighter in the proposed system, not a chance in hell. If there were robust reputation and law systems I might think otherwise, where lawful zones had a reasonable expectation of safety for lawful players and a reasonable level of difficulty for lawless players, but that's an absolute pipe dream at this point. Honestly weapons should be tied to the travel mode, forcing more coordination and resources from attackers. We have snares and QEDs to force targets and attackers out of the travel mode, if the defender manages to escape that they no longer need weapons.

[@explorer47422]

QB only takes a few seconds to charge, demo had shields down for like 2 seconds before entering quantum boost in a small ship. It's still a moment of vulnerability an attacker can take advantage of sure, but hardly detrimental, but there needs to be a consequence otherwise it will be a huge tactical advantage to just boost anywhere and exit at full shield strength that can be abused.

[@TarkisRai]

@explorer47422 the problem is that attackers can follow you into quantum boost with their *weapons* active. The only chance of escape is hoping you can survive with your shields down long enough to calibrate, align to a marker, spool, and make a partial jump. Do you really think a Prospector is going to survive that long against a Hornet with no shields?

[@explorer47422]

@@TarkisRai How can they follow you into boost if they don't know where you're going? Boost doesnt use quantum markers, you can point anywhere and activate it, barely a second in and you'll have lost them. For them to follow they'll have to know exactly where you were pointing and exactly when you drop out again, this is hard to do even WITH markers as you can also just drop out at any arbitrary point.

[@solidcdr6]

@@TarkisRai Thats not how they said that works though. You keep your weapons in nav mode, not while quantum boosting

[@Tetractys72]

34:00 Precision mode’s aspect of disabling ships instead of destroying them is good, but yes, that “tunnel vision” is detrimental for sure.

[@Lofty_o7]

Old devs and old design ideas out > New devs come in with their own ideas and completely change everything, unaware of the work that went before them. Most devs working on this game will have only been hired in the past few years, will definitely not play their own game in the sense an actual player would. This is the very reason why devs are so reluctant to talk on camera because they say stupid stuff that people hold them to years later. They cannot talk about another dev's previous work and they can't say anything negative. It must be a nightmare when the CEO is constantly micromanaging your design team and you have to go on KZbin to gaslight the community and claim these are your own design decisions.

[@damaddmann]

I think this holds a lot of value and I think CIG has a high turnover rate which is why we keep getting these backing for flight changes

[@Lofty_o7]

@@damaddmann Yeah I mean as A1 says, why don't they just listen to the community?

[@MountainDewFuel]

Helping children is the purest form of love on this planet. Awesome stuff.

[@batonemo6096]

This is absolutely the ' I fucking told you so' video I came here for.

[@freshfresh5205]

These new upgrade to win by improving ship characteristics reminds me of the now free to play game naval action which I have been playing while I wait for 4.0. You have to grind like crazy to be able to afford upgrades to make it easy to destroy other players. Without a large clan this is very hard. This in turn leads to safe zones to protect casual players who just want to fight AI.

[@AnnaVahtera]

Editing at 6:10 was too good. Had to run to the bathroom to finish laughing.

[@Casey093]

Year 13, and they are still throwing new foundational concepts at the wall, and see if anything sticks.

[@Leptospirosi]

And this is the worrying thing: they don't have the basics set and clearly navigating at sight. This is NOT how a Big project needs to be managed.

[@Casey093]

@@Leptospirosi As SalteMike said: They are kicking a can in front of them, always thinking only about the next few steps, without any idea what their destination / project goal is. You do not manage a 700M project like this, that's just putting 700M on red and hoping for the best.

[@danielwlodawer8469]

I can't understand that. These fundamentals should be set in the first one or max two years of development. You can evolve these over the years of course, but it's a space game. Flight model should be one of the first things to flesh out. The moment you know that you fly in space and atmosphere you have all the input you need to decide on a model.

[@robopenguin5501]

Seriously. ALL OF THIS talk we've received recently is stuff that should have been discussed in the first 3 years of development...

[@explorer47422]

Almost as if it's still being developed or something?

[@ephalanx1]

Not sure I see it as back peddling. It seems to align with what they've been trying to do. BTW - nice work for the kids. Love it.

[@russellburns205]

Nothing they talked about in the video aligns with the information they put out around master modes

[@KA317S]

Goes against everything Yogi was adamant doing with MM's.

[@GundamWheat]

@@KA317S What have you seen that makes you say that?

[@echo5827]

Yeah it's definitely a sidestep, but I imagine someone just finally checked yogi They're basically keeping all MM stuff just pushing speeds a bit in combat and not changing them between modes

[@latjolajban81]

@@GundamWheat Oh go back and watch Yogi talk about the excitement and how good master modes was gonna be. And what they wanted to do with combat.

[@damaddmann]

It’s funny I worked at a company circuit city back in the early 2000s and they came in and they called this program Genesis or basically they fired all the experience employees or made them take pay cut and brought in younger people with no experience. Ultimately the company went out of business.

[@iroquoisplissken3583]

MM was never supposed to be static? Then why add it without plans to make ANY changes for a year?

[@CaptainPoldork69]

Revert to 3.22 flight model, equip every ship with a "NURF" button that when engaged it will limit your ship speed to whatever speed the user set it to for each individual ship and does NOTHING ELSE. That way we can fly a space ship like a space ship AND they can joke that they NURFED every ship in the game instead of it being the sad reality of MM. Just a fancy speed limiter. If you are going over "X" speed and you engage NURF MODE the space brake can engage and slow you to desired speed then auto-disengage and limit you to that speed. If you don't have boost left, then you brake does not engage so take your chances slowing down, make you more aware of how much boost your using. Then, you turn off NURF MODE when you are ready. This would let different size ships could have different speed limiter's they would be able to set personally to their preference to better quality of game life for EVERYONE so they can set it how they like.

[@marcuswynn89]

Okay I don’t think this fully getting rid of master modes nor is giving us our speed back. Hopefully we get speed in the 600-700 m/s range

[@jonathaneskew9878]

this is what ive been saying. i dont like losing nav speeds but if we get 600-700 unified speed i would be happy

[@oceanaa967]

You know what I think they should do is yes listen to the players moor put up in game polls and let us vote on what is important to the players

[@PlayerSlotAvailable]

I feel like maybe it is reasonable for customers to expect the Space sim game to have figured out their flight model in year 12

[@DoomSlingerGAME]

Yesn't

[@PlayerSlotAvailable]

@ Is Avenger happy about the Yesn't?

[@Dragon69FlyTeam]

no they triple down and add an extra mode😥

[@Casey093]

As with most CIG ideas, after many years of holding their ears shut, they finally see the errors in their old approach. But instead of saying "we fucked up, your were right 8 years ago and we should have listened", they still stick to parts of it instead of axing it.

[@Vioblight]

Just watch it

[@KiithnarasAshaa]

I like precision mode for a combat model with much longer ranges for large ships. If a turret on a ship, or an Ares Ion, had a nominal range around 8km, precision mode would be delightful to keep that combat visual without physically closing the distance.

[@Delta_N9ne.]

After watching this Ive come to a few conclusions: 1. CIG made their bed and they're committed to lying in it by making SQ42 > SC a direct step. Now, they've obligated themselves to trying to create a flight model with control parity between HOSAS/Sim controls and console controllers. 2. They're moving the flight combat experience away from player skill expression to game knowledge and engagement. Essentially, the more gear and stuff you have and your selection of gear and stuff is going to have more of an impact than your mechanical abilities. So the idea is if you grind long enough to collect all "tier 5" crafted components and ask reddit for the meta load outs, you'll be able to overcome most mechanical skill differences. 3. Low 200s speed is the most efficient speed under their current hardware and software limitations. Now, this one is reading between the lines, but the amount of desync we see in MM now tells me pretty definitively higher flight speeds will only happen once performance optimizations happen. BUT my guess is low speed flight is going to have so much inertia that it's going to stay low speed.

[@BlueSpectre]

i started a year ago, and crashed into the station first flight. then i was like "oh, now i know what not to do....lul" and i never did it again.......i dont get the hangup....do they think players are freaking out and deleting the game the second they hit a station? its just a learning experience. i had a harder time figuring out how to exit the their dam hanger...........

[@dracoflame8780]

The learning experience is what makes it fun. Cause its not simple. You get stronger by learning and getting your kill up. Not by outleveling people

[@explorer47422]

In 1.0 losing your ship will be more consequential, it wont magically re-appear after a minute like in the PU

[@mebrian5728]

@@explorer47422 Well, they did say that losing your starter ship will not be drastic at all, and will function somewhat similarly to how it works now. They mainly focused on the medium - large ships.

[@RealWestCider]

CIG developers are like politicians... Never admit mistake, rename the rename of another rename, and not listening to anyone until their bottom line is on fire 😂

[@ParaquatSC]

so politicians are just like people then... cool

[@Spike.SpiegeI]

Gotta say the puppet skit was great, totally unexpected and love to see Jared do quirky stuff

[@skelpie]

Fighting even pve is unbearably dead feeling in mm. Its a strafe fest, just hold a strafe direction and hold left click, literally nothing else to do.

[@bjordan429]

I think at this point in development and reaching an inflection point last year, they shouldn't be using the "we are in the early stages of this" card anymore. Someone shuffle out those cards and re-deal, please. 5:47 - yeah....thats how I felt hearing this too. Haha. Your expressions tell all. 34:00 - No, it isnt great in a single seat. Large v Large could be useful, but I dont get turreters often enough, and my group would rather I be in my ship than a turret currently.

[@thebigjr9995]

Mm was fundamentally obviously flawed from the go. I stopped dogfighting after mm because it became so boring. Nav mode was lame. I preferred to waste my own time and stay in scm rather than switch for 30 seconds.

[@michaelweaver4439]

Oh CIG still have no idea what they’re doing.. they can’t admit their wrong, they can’t admit they ducked up - it’s so sad

[@KiithnarasAshaa]

3:40 No, no, "Mixed Reviews" is fair - there are a lot of sycophants and casuals who made vocally positive support. It's very similar to a game on Steam having a Mixed Review status, with 45-55% approval - it ain't good.

[@SpudicusMaximus]

When I played the first time after MM, I typed in chat "CIG if you are listening, MM sucks BALLSSSSS" then the sycophants in chat where all "Git Gud"... Bitch I've been playing since 2016, been through various flight models, MM is not the answer!!!

[@hirmor666]

Eve 2.0 once again... always knew it was going there

[@damaddmann]

I don’t always agree with you, but you have been very straightforward about your feedback and whether they admit it or not, I think they’re taking your advice because of the way you approach giving constructive criticism. We’re lucky to have you rather we like you or not

[@Avenger__One]

Thanks, I guess 😅

[@damaddmann]

@@Avenger__One I respect the hell out of you man, you are the hero we dont deserve lol

[@BuddyMcNugget]

I was looking forward to your response to this one. Also, Jared is da man. His hosting of these shows has only gotten better and better over the years. Show the man the love he deserves!

[@zawadlttv]

1:52 "am i gonna be upset watching this, people complain that im always upset all the time, and its not the case. IM NOT AN UPSET PERSON!!" 3:10 "I should get some wine for this" 3:17 😤 3:25 "how'd that work out boys?" 3:30 *upset*

[@rycop]

Knew the A1 react to this would be fun. :) Translating the management speak: CIG admits that the current flight model is too complex, artificial and will be changed. They floated some hypothetical changes they have in mind, but note that no concrete promises were made. Hopefully they have a solid plan and hopefully things will improve but it's all pretty vague. So here we go again. Strap in tight. Gonna be another wild ride.

[@RN1441]

It's the second part that's the problem. They're in year 13 of development and they still don't plan.

[@positronikiss]

Oh wow so cool! Yay! A new plan for the possible iterative vision for future ideas! YES! Love cig love cig yeaaajjjj goooooooooo Citizens!!!

[@rycop]

I know I know. Changing their flight model again at this point and dropping a bunch of vague stuff about crafting into the picture after gaslighting us for the past year about how great Master Modes is…in plain non management speak…is frikking insane.

[@andrewkok3467]

This is what happens when the marketing team runs the show. Now the game design team are just an extension of the marketing team. Years of wasted progress.

[@worpd_gamer270]

LOL 3 minutes in... I love this. "MIXED REVIEWS?!??!"

[@benmoi3390]

STOP making a flight model based on stats!!! make a thruster based flight model... look at the karthual... the very concept of that ship, the reliant, the fury and the santokyai is that the main thruster are GYROSCOPIC and therefor are used for navigation!!!! they should only have main thruster!!! well the reliant should have landing thruster as well to make the wings rotate ... tight now all those ships have 14-16 thrusters , 2 -4 mains and 12 navigation thrusters!!!! the buccaneer... same that ship should have only 5 thrusters... 2 mains... 3 landing... and the ratio of power alocated make the ship turn, roll, dive... not all ship are designed to have 6 axes of movements. look at the polaris... navigation thruster are mostly for landing precision... they are useless in combat... the mains 6 thrusters are the ones that should define your direction. example if you go max speed forward... the to turn you need to reduce the propulsion of one side... and engage the retro thrusters of the other side... because there's no lost of momentum. JUST use the the Thruster Physics of each ship designs instead of balancing them with spreadsheats stats!!!!

[@ksl-988]

Crafting is such a shit idea. It would be okay if it was a profession that merely tied into industrial professions. But making a phony carrot on a stick for PVPers to chase just to get their shifting meta sounds like such an imbalanced nightmare that throws everything off for everyone just to limit PVPers just like MM did. They can say "you don't have to if you don't want to" but a meta is a meta. If it's there everyone will feel obligated to chase it.

[@EzperInSpace]

Fist 10 min of this had me rollin 🤣. I agree 600 max speeds felt glorious and fun. Even AI Bounty hunting missions used to be fun before. I feel like ship balancing and Gold standards is gonna take another 20 years......

[@Aklys]

The aspect of disegagement described with dropping of shields without any engineering influence means that the system has the same problems MM currently has and further pushes combat to the death/disablement. It shows they don't understand skilled disengagement options. Not many ships are trying to bring their weapons to bear when disengaging with they way we have geometry being rear thrusters get you a higher top speed.

[@wild_lee_coyote]

I think it would be interesting to have your speed and shield strength linked. Basically have shields effect spacetime, so the stronger your shields the slower you go. So your max SCM speed is your ship with no shields. With max shields your ship slows to a crawl (max shields would probably have to double or triple) and most ships would have to land in an atmosphere, but they would be very tanky. It gives the average player the slower speeds CIG wants so the shields take most of the punishment, but more skilled players can go faster but can’t take as much damage. It would make for a more realistic mechanic than artificially limiting speeds with a game mechanic. Then max SCM is because the shields have a minimum that protects from micrometeoroids, and if fully disabled you are constantly taking hull damage.

[@adamalbert9179]

“It’s ok to disagree.” Nightrider says otherwise lol

[@zenistfpv]

10 years in CIG discovers Systems level design....

[@ultrastoat3298]

5:10 Love the Fry meme emote on Avenger's face. All that's missing is a subtle zoom in.

[@patchfortyfour8119]

I couldn't be happier about this. Mixed reviews my @$$.

[@cwagnerIT]

If precision mode was only applicable to non-pilots it would be a reason to have a turret gunner or operator. It could be one of the things that makes turrets and other operators unique and give them a purpose vs the decision to just bring another single seater to a fight. There has to be a reason why you pick manning a turret over manning a single seater otherwise, you should always bring another fighter. If the decision is always "you should bring another fighter" you've made all the other roles irrelevant. Maybe that's not the answer, but there has to be an answer to this.

[@Casey093]

00:41:10 CIG still do not understand that "kills per shiptype" is meaningless, "kills per flown hours of shiptype" is what they need to use. All they do now is nerfing popular ships, instead of strong ships.

[@Xaxxus]

Kills per shiptype is kind of relevant though. If a ship has a ton of kills, it likely means its used disproportionately more than other ships. And in most games, something being used way more than others is an indicator of that thing being meta or better than other alternatives.

[@XxXnonameAsDXxX]

The titan is next

[@Mindbulletz]

@@Xaxxus Casey is right. The metric measuring popularity is additional degrees of separation removed from how strong a ship actually is. It's also combined with how bug free a ship is and other factors. It's equivalent to measuring an artist's hand-painted depiction of an object rather than measuring the object itself. It explains a lot about why their decisions these days never make any goddamn sense even though I've been following the project since the beginning.

[@asianboyyy117]

This guy is smart.

[@keeperwings1]

Percision targeting for me makes sense, but it's current iteration isn't what it needs to be. The zoom feature makes it good for "sniper" ships, and will allow ships like the Ares to target components from a longer distance, but let me highlight components for closer combat as well.

[@carllong8954]

Mixed reviews. Code for the positive ones were our alt accounts that are not linked to CIG.

[@NewColossusNorthing]

Nah. There were armies of spacedads who were just happy because MM annoyed people with flying skill.

[@x3n0v1s]

I was waiting for your commentary on this.

[@omnipotech1557]

"MIXED REVIEWS?!" - The sum of all players opinions

[@threeweeks5010]

The editing of this video... top notch.... just top notch.

[@danielwlodawer8469]

Just let players themself modify flight modes per ship as they wish. Make some base modes with standard settings. Then players can rename and adjust the modes as they wish. Make a stealth mode for example with the player making presets for energy outputs to reduce signature for example turning of active scanners. Power management and ship item management could be soooo deep.

[@flipzie2641]

The AVS Sick kids for Charity tournament was cool, and I'm glad you guys did it and made them happy. I actually won one of the prizes for donating, but it never got to me even when I asked for updates I got a automated email response. Wish there was a list of people that won they posted, because now I think me and the people in that chain mail got pished maybe. :(

[@ikkeheltvanlig]

A good way to allow costly upgrades: allow players to make their ships more defensive in exchange for dogfighting abilities, like higher hull for lower acceleration, higher max speed for slower pitch / yaw, higher shields for lower dps etc. This will not let you buy pvp wins, but still make upgrades very attractive among many players

[@vicsid9606]

I think we're due for CIG to take another shot at hover mode ...

[@F96-t6s]

I'm beginning to think that master modes attempted to be an equalizer between PC users with HOTAS and console users with just a joypad (CIG joked about a console version before). Why? because I found that I could perform just as well (or poorly rather) with a keyboard and mouse with master modes, which, led me to packing up my HOTAS and clearing my desk as it seemed like overkill for a slow-ass flying game. Thereby forcing the better players to be just as bad as a new player. Anyway, let's see what CIG does. Hope they give me a reason to break out that HOTAS again.

[@elhuppi]

It might feel too slow for all you ultra PVP-fighters, but I´m playing this game since 2016 and I always hated the space fights when the speeds got so fast, that you never really saw your opponents ship and always just a marker zooming by at incredible speed and then again and again. That was pure boredom, to me at least. I´m from these old wingcomander times and I like to have a dogfight kind of feel where the action is close enough to see your enemies ship and fire at him several times, and not just a few shots at something thats 4 km away and a second later already jousted past you. But thats whats going to happen if the scm fighting speed ranges to 600m/s again - No thanks.

[@theBackSpaced]

We're not back at square one, we are PROUDLY back at square one... Except somehow it's even dumber now.

[@Avenger__One]

Ain't that the truth!

[@donotwantyoutoknowit]

Saw the CIG video, only understood "train station" and was waiting for Avengers take on it. It all sounded like excuses and kind of like making everything even worse. I just thought and wait for A1s explanation... ***please make A1 a little bit happy, please make A1 at least a little bit happy, please make A1 at least partially happy***

[@NegativeProcess]

15:15 so they really do think we're incapable of learning 😂. They want flight to be so easy that a brand new player is just as competitive as a veteran.

[@kps393]

Yeah that really is what it feels like they are doing. Idk why they are so against people learning anything.

[@Evirthewarrior]

The old flight model made every new player just get deleted in games then quit, you would see guys with tons of kills running their kills up in first place, while the vast majority of people were sitting there with 0-5 kills. It made most people not want to even play because the moment you start combat, you were blown up. The current flight model gives people a chance, they can react and do things rather than just have a guy zoom by and blow you up before you really even see what is going on.

[@vamperic]

Given how much the community fucking whines about every change yeah I'd say they are correct about people being incapable of learning

[@_Anaklysmos_]

@@Evirthewarriorthat isn‘t different to any other pvp game ever made. The sweats will crush the he noobs. That‘s how it always will be and that‘s good

[@latjolajban81]

@@Evirthewarrior In Arena Commander? Well who cares. It doesn't happen in the PU. You don't see "guys with tons of kills running their kills up in the first place" in the PU. Who cares what happens in Arena Commander? Are we seriously balancing the game around sweatlords and noobs in Arena Commander?

[@Volf1916]

Mixed reveiws yes. There are those that realize it is "$HI+". And those who do no combate of any kind that were"HUH?". Why? That is a kind of mixed.😅

[@CuuchCRUSHER]

CIG chased the casual players with mastermodes and forgot who brought them to the dance. They are now backpedaling because funding is down. Money talks.

[@xXE4GLEyEXx]

I am a filthy casual and I loved the times when non master modes were present. The whole sudden slowdown for combat mode and all that feels insanely artificial. Hopefully they will figure something out. Time to return flip burn slowdowns :3

[@LeifPetersen1986]

funding is down? aha? this year is at least the same as last year.

[@txsicshooter]

Disagree Combat became way more sweaty under MM. It only catered to the most elite pilots. Average players lose far more often now.

[@damaddmann]

That’s what I’m thinking

[@damaddmann]

@@txsicshooterit fn sucks

[@chadowen4379]

Love how CIG bans or removes you from their live feed or forums if you say ANYTHING negative about master mode. Just shows that they know and don't care!

[@lyl14ghost]

I know exactly how avenger one would feel about MM and avoided his content for a long time, because I didn't even want to play after the update (not a lot of reason to). Now I am back, and glad to see A1 is exactly how I imagined he is feeling.

[@anthonyclare6750]

Well done on the Sick kids charity fundraising. Bravo

[@ZelosPhotizo]

You know what worked great? Using the limiter to select any speed limit I wanted in any given situation shy of quantum. Adding operator modes for specialized activities, might be fine, not having shield in quantum is fine, but not sure why this is necessary. The said Master Modes SUCKS! it doesn’t flow, you also kind of forgot Landing mode, I guess you could call it an operator mode but it acts like a master mode. As for this explanation of change, to be frank it sounds like a confusing load of BS. What Chris and consequently the team say they are trying to do with space combat being like WW2 is fundamentally incompatible with space and the requirements to traverse such a huge environment with solo and group game play. It’s also not compatible with how a space craft can thrust along different vectors. The best you can possibly hope for is design “in atmosphere” missions and encounters where with some ships you get close slow combat. There are lots of ways to do this, make ammo slower and less distance in atmo, aerodynamic ships be the better choice, maybe to the point that a non aero space combat fighter is just at a significant disadvantage in atmo, etc. Make space combat like space combat should be, give us the systems and tools to have the best experience possible in that situation rather than wasting all this time trying to realize a bad idea. Seriously please stop chasing this bad idea in WW2 slower combat, accept it and adapt. Certainly you can design specific encounters in atmo, high density gas field etc…that more resemble WW2 type combat, it would be a specialty that was planned for and sought out by a subset of players. Do you have any idea how frustrating it is watching CiG get this fundamental thing so wrong and waste so much time trying something that just isn’t going to work? All that’s left are caps lock expletives until we can talk with out this bad idea as a constraint to creativity, sometimes you find gold in constrained boxes, sometimes you find crap. The latter is in play, it’s like Chris decided that since he loved NASCAR as a child, we can only turn left in the game I mean NASCAR is super cinematic, right?

[@robertkoch8343]

Nice work with the kids!!... Been waiting for this commentary!! Mixed reviews! kekw =) Continue to be a beacon of hope for the combat model....

[@MrBenjaminRhoades]

This is a good example of why an "interview" format isn't great for explaining things, particularly if you don't have an interviewer who can ask pressing questions from the PoV of the community. There are some good nuggets in here, but a LOT of unknowns that could have been answered through a coherent design brief followed by a community Q&A.

[@obiincs]

Oh man, your Blue screen of death edit totally cracked me up 😂😂😂

[@Casey093]

And again... you wonder if SQ42 is really as finished as they say. xD

[@Vioblight]

Dude they actually made me laugh many times. This felt better than most

[@IIDROGOSII]

elite dangerous has the answer for speeds

[@gsacavin6897]

I had a really good time watching this ! 1 down, 2 to go : geometry and bring back 6DOF God I hate when my ship magically create thrust form the void to slow me down jut cause I turn my nose back ^^ Thank you A1 for your service in the Master Mode war

[@MILSPECMOM]

This is the one reaction video I've been waiting for. *grabs popcorn and bottle of wine*

[@AAK625]

In the short term, remove the speed limiter drop after exiting QT and the increased delay to switch to regular propulsion.

[@ro-mon_gerrs_u-tube1944]

I would love to see 500 mps the default "SCM" speed with Boost making up the difference...Up to 625, 750, 875, 1000, 1250 mps Max. Slower bigger ships would have the slowest boost but more of it!! While the "Fighters" would get the fastest boost but have less of it. For example: A raft could boost up to 650 mps for 5 minutes vs a snub could boost to 1250 for 30 to 45 seconds kind of thing. 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔

[@mikalemadden1762]

To be fair, I think that the statement that MM released to "mixed reviews" is accurate. However people watching this channel may feel about it, a huge amount of other players reaction was something like. "well, combat seems easier now, so that must mean it's better"

[@Hestnya]

I think one part of CIG's messaging, that you may have misunderstood; was that they where going to "play around" with scm speeds, most likely to just gather data. The last year my views of the flight model have been fully aligned with yours, but I wish you hadn't overlooked that small but important detail.

[@Riley8425]

26:20 I think they are saying that if your QT drive is on, you can access those higher speeds, but instead of completely changing the flight mode, the QT drive is just inverse interlocked with the shields.

[@flytechlive6513]

First of all. All ingame Stuff aside. Kudos! fot that AVS Flight Charity! Great Work. And, ngl This video is your Arc :D I fkn loughed my ass off on that error Screen !!!! ( 5:45 )

[@KildalSC]

Happy thanksgiving, glad you liked the episode. From a bad pilots perspective this seems good. I honestly been liking the lower speeds and even precision targeting mode for just simple stuff like phase 3 of save stanton, but being able to craft and upgrade our ships and components to get to higher speeds and a much higher skill ceiling both in flight skill and knowledge about what to prioritize, is great for depth and longevity. Being able to switch between nav and scm speeds really turned me off from trying to become better at racing and this gets me excited to pick it back up again once these changes are live.

[@guidobolke5618]

I wonder how they can make such a systemic change while finishing up SQ42.They are amazing.

[@MooneShadow]

I love these shows. They are so creative for CIG! Bravo CIG! Bravo! Muppets shout out! A soulless marketing puppet and then jarred changes into a Muppet. Genius stuff!

[@emperorurbi]

Feels like they are going back to the drawing board, instead of just going back to for example the 3.12 model... You had a good model to start from, go from there!!!

[@explorer47422]

They didn't explain it well but it's basically this: We're going back to what we had before MM with 2 changes: addition of QB but charging it disables shields, like QT does (and cant fire weapons once you *enter* quantum, identical to now), and the highest non-quantum top speed of that particular ship (formerly only accessible in nav mode) will be capped and instead will be dependent on ship tier and component quality instead of an arbitrary ship mode you have to switch to. That's all. The highest tier ship with highest quality components will be able to attain top speeds approaching that seen in current Nav modes, but without the need to 'switch' to a mode and no restriction to shield or weapon use. This is great because now you'll have to work towards optimising your ship for combat (or any other particular profession) and earn/unlock the performance (i.e. higher ship combat speeds) instead of just being given the best of everything all at once with no reason to do anything else in the game. It's like tuning your car up, you don't rely on the dealer giving you the best configuration for racing it, but if you're just using it to get from A to B then default will suffice, or if you want to tow something you may not care about speed but you want to improve suspension or tires instead.

[@goldfishmentality]

Jared seems mad that this is even a conversation they need to have 😭

[@anom794939393]

i am glad they are still tuning and balancing things. they will keep doing that for a long time. i still don't think we have even tried mm because of the lack of engineering gameplay and as they said earlier time to disable. Right now we are in these slugfest that should end in more options instead of a big ol boom. but when they chose the speeds they were imagined to be slug fests that end in broken ships crash landings fps combat, multicrew desperation, and all sorts of other things that we as players never got to experience (outside of a super limited and rough ac mode).

[@kujoujima7303]

7:10 "one cohesive speed" *turns it into a techno mix-tape*

[@SkyeWolf310]

If I understand this correctly, by default SCM low speed. Great start for everyone, Even if you have a little skill, lets you get your feet wet. However, your end game goal at this point that the pilot knows is to start managing your power to get more out of your basic systems to be a little faster but this only gets you so far, If you want to go even faster than that, you buy a new component And with engineering that gets you a little bit more next you learn, you need to start tuning and crafting better components. Giving the pilot a chance to adjust to the new speeds and see what their needs are for maneuvering and so on. The next end game for the pilot is to reach max nav speed your ship's maximum stats. You have to earn it. I'm for this You might be able to even increase your ship's Max nav speed with those newer components. Better thrusters better engines. And that's not even talking quantum boost. This is just the flight I'm discussing.

[@Biter1975]

That was a good video from CIG.

[@joshua41175]

To be fair, they've been trying to avoid using the elite dangerous flight model for years now and slowly theyve just adapted over to it. I wonder if tricording will come back to at least try and differentiate between the two.

[@CallMeTeach2]

Precision targeting was mainly made for turrets. If you don't want to use it in a fighter, you don't have to. You can even unbind it so it never turns on. Problem solved.

[@Monarch_GNSG]

it was more made for fighters targeting subsystems.

[@CallMeTeach2]

@Monarch_GNSG Pardon me. Thought it was for turrets because I've only ever used it properly from a turret. Seems like that works better than what they "wanted".

[@iroquoisplissken3583]

Precision targeting in fighters is a single player mechanic they are trying to force into the game bc SQ42

[@Warsheep2k6]

I think its a must have in something like the ion