Star Citizen: RIP Drake Corsair

[@fueler5479]

It's the Ares Ion all over again. Pure bait and switch. They've done it with serveral ships, like the Banu Defenders guns that were sold as one thing then changed after sales had ended. CiG does not respect it's playerbase, just the money.

[@Droidiak]

Seriously man bought the defender for those singes and man do they suck now.

[@alexpetrov8871]

@@Droidiak >those singes and man do they suck now. Depends on usage. You can equip 6xS3 singes on some ships, which make 6k alpha at 1500m distance. This is a oneshot death for many light fighters )) It isn't a best choice for duel for sure but for some group skirmiches it may be a tactical solution. PS Right now by abusing a bug you can equip that on Ghost and literally oneshot from stealth.

[@LeifPetersen1986]

called alpha balance.

[@AJ-em2rb]

i think it's more that Chris Roberts doesn't respect his advisors, forces bad decisions, then lets them fix it once the data shows that his advisors were right. this change is solidly respect for the playerbase, just not to Corsair solos (which should never have been competitive to begin with).

[@case1737]

CIG wants players buying ships. The simplest way to make that happen is to make the ships players have become crappy. They literally state in the ISC on engineering that the intent is to make piloting ships of size troublesome for solo players. As it happens, I have yet to see a scenario where a ship gets purchased by multiple players and they all have access to call it in their hangar. But the problem is the same as it has been for the last few years... US. A not inconsiderable subset of players white knight for CIG and explain their behavior and practices into something benign. It isn't benign. If it was the exact same stuff wouldn't keep happening repeatedly. 1 instance is a mistake-7 of the same instances is a practice. But they will call it a mistake and the white knights will back them up. Banu defender, MSR, Ares Inferno, Ares Ion, Redeemer, 400I, and the Corsair all got nerfed in insane ways right before new ships got offered that do similar roles or right after the refund period elapsed.

[@yrovie]

Yep! CiG keeps doing things backwards-releasing new ships that overlap with existing ones while ignoring updates to core mechanics that support multicrew gameplay. As a developer with 20+ years of experience, I know that game revenue comes from usable features and stability, not gimmicks, empty promises, or project creep. Reworking current ships like the 600i, Carrack, and Valkyrie would attract both new and existing players. My prediction? In the next 5 years, PU won’t hit 1.0, and another major game company will create an environment with everything SC offers and more. CiG has been sleeping on their genius for years, someone is about to take their lunch.

[@Ace-Brigade]

Not to mention the huge backlog of ships they owe us still. They keep using new money to pay for old debts. This is a ponzu scheme that is going to fall under its own weight.

[@McDamaged]

reminds me of cell phone companies when they update their phones & it starts making older models not work so you have to upgrade to a new one.

[@aglandorf75]

As a Corsair owner , it feels like: Hmm, lets mount the brake pedal from your car to the passenger side, just for fun and giggles, so the 'Copilot' got something to do....... That would be ridiculous, would´nt it? You want the copilot to do something? Get into one of the f*cking turrets and thats it. And just to add this: Which ship would be the next one to nerf, because it got way to many kills, probably the Conny and what happens after that, another ship to nerf?

[@planetwally]

very well said .. what made it look really bad is selling the starlancer shortly after nerfing both the corsair and redeemer

[@InTVS]

a total coincidence im pretty sure, CIG wouldn't ever nerf something because of marketing right?

[@vonrosphe3098]

I may be look bad. But the starlancer isn't a replacement for the old corsair, maybe a bad one for the old redeemer. The replacement for the Corsair is the Conni. The new redeemer fits much more into the vers. BUT Cig should have decreased the money value for the redeemer and give the owners the difference back.

[@naoh8026]

yay, nerfing redeemer for TAC, announced galaxy building module will not come out before the BLD, really disgusting

[@flamebreaker7318]

@@naoh8026bro the tac and the redeemer are incredibly different

[@Fire-Bound]

@@flamebreaker7318 this right here, i don't under stand why people are so pressed about this. the redeemer is 51 meters long and the TAC is 83, they are in a completely different size class.

[@kenalbus]

I think the crux of the problem is that CIG is focused on disincentivizing solo play rather than Incentivizing multi crew gameplay. We need a carrot, not a stick.

[@ArthurLehmann]

CIG, It's a fucking game, give us the thing, let us have fun

[@cliftongamespoorly6333]

No

[@rooster1012]

It's about time they balanced it as it is way to powerful for an exploration ship.

[@0311matt]

@@rooster1012 giving half the firepower that was always designed for the pilot, to a co-pilot that will never exist is a piss poor way to execute a balance. besides, it's a pirate ship, that's what corsair literally means, and what Drake builds.

[@COMMANDERHAWK22]

@@rooster1012 they sold it one way, advertised it that way , then nerfed it because people were using it the way it was advertised.

[@BigLD]

@@rooster1012 I bet you fly a Connie Aquila or Pheonix & think its balanced too huh lol

[@Ratticus_Black]

I'm an Ares Inferno owner, and a Corsair owner, and I'm honestly done with CIG's bait and switch. If I were Master-Blaster, and my Wallet was Bartertown, I'd inform CIG that the "Embargo is on!"

[@Luis-lq5yk]

Inferno is good now. Ion is tragic.

[@michaelmichaelagnew8503]

They have been baiting and switching for the past 8 years. Honestly they have been given so much money there is no reason why the game hasn't came out yet. Honestly I don't think this game will ever come out since CIG wants to keep adding new ideas. Chris will be dead before this game comes out of beta. On that note the corsair was screaming for a nerf since it came out. It being the only ship of its class to for the pilot to be able to use all the weapons at once is just too op. Not its being brought down to the level of the other Large ships, or medium whatever it is.

[@arcadealchemist]

The infernon is how I earned my glave, it nukes at vanduul swarm just because of the missiles

[@Astelch]

Inferno still shreds and they wont take away its s7. Meanwhile If i owned a connie i would be sweating because its now the best solo firepower with 5 s5 pilot controlled weps.

[@alexpetrov8871]

I think most of Ares or Corsair owners don't even realise that things will change even more dramatically. CIG have plans to abandon "Hull HP" concept in favor of"Armour+Hull penetration+component HP" concept, where to destroy a ship you'll have to target it's components (instead of targeting hull) and either disable them completely or make unstable and blow up. Which means instead of targeting 120m long HH's hull, you'll have to target it's 2m in size components which are still move with HH's speed 150m/s and roll. With Ares SF7E (or so loved by Corsair owners AD5B) projectile speed 900ms it means players will have to keep a distance about 100m or less to hit that damm 2m component if HH is actively changing movement direction(rolling). In other words (at such distance) nor Ares nor multicrew Corsair will be a threat to fully crewed HH unless CIG increases projectile speed significantly or introduce beam weapons.

[@odcon]

It still says in the Corsair Q&A that the four main guns will be controlled by the pilot by default. This is sales material used to sell the ship and it is no longer true. I won't be giving CIG anymore money knowing they 1) blatantly lie in their marketing material, 2) nerf to upsell, and 3) are willing to call that copilot seat gimbaled guns and remote turret setup a push toward multicrew -- no one wants to use that seat.

[@georgea5991]

That, and Spectrum restricts what you can say worse than YT or FB, combined. But that copilot seat is fine for the remote turret, _or_ if there is slaving to the pilot by default like the Redeemer still does (RIP that ship too), with the option to control it. But ya, they cater to the trolls who will just buy an Arrow and grief people trying to make an effort at deeper gameplay (and spending). Two ships, BIS last year, relegated to the trash heap. And if that happens to the soul of my fleet, only to see one of those ships revived in yet one more of the same price, the only thing I'm looking to do now is recoup my embarrassing amount of money in this billion dollar -game- alpha.

[@SpikeWheelGaming]

Glad I saw this… I was about to upgrade to a Corsair. I refuse to get Ion’d again.

[@COMMANDERHAWK22]

might be a good idea to not buy anymore ships at all whos to say you wont buy a ship you like down the road and the same thing happens.

[@AHMANNII]

I upgraded from a Cutlass Black knowing the changes to the Corsair. I can’t compare to before the changes but I will say the Corsair has been awesome running bounty missions. The guns do awesome damage and even though you lose 2 you still have 2x S5s along with the 2x S4s. I will say I do miss the Cutty B but I don’t think I’d get rid of the Corsair to get it back rather than just having both

[@imushavem4061]

I feel they made the $250 Corsair weaker in every way to the $200 Taurus. Those guns gave it that extra $50 value. I can't even downgrade to the Taurus without melting and losing my LTI without buying a LTI token. That is the BS to me.

[@matthewbrady5274]

Should have access to at least one store credit buy back, think it resets every year.

[@lordsheogorath3377]

@@matthewbrady5274 once every quarter.

[@naoh8026]

I will upgrad my corsair to a practical 1536scu ironclad for cargo hauling, this time I know I'll never buy any firepower attracted ship in the future

[@schlagzahne6741]

Shouldn't have bought for power then. I kept mine because I love the aesthetic and styling. If you fly solo then choose solo ships, who says taurus will remain the way it is? Maybe Connie's drop back to 4x size 4s. Also once engineering goes live, all solo players on multi crew ships will be borked when systems start shutting down. Also.... DONT BUY FOR POWER - cig might just change that. Don't fly multicrew ships solo. Expect changes. Look at the changes as a whole- even with 4 guns the corsair is nuking larger ships, shields overall have lower hp pools and so on. I feel if they make the copilot guns a 180 degree rotating turret it would be fine.

[@karmabad6287]

​@matthewbrady5274 you get 4 buyback tokens every year that can be used to buy back melted ships with store credit.

[@shawnc5188]

The Corsair is still ok for ERT - switch the bottom guns to ballistic so there’s more capacitor for the pilot guns. 2x M7 + 2x M6 still blows Hammerheads, which it still out ranges, and it reloads slightly faster now. Yea, the copilot gunnery range is very limited, and yeah, I now prefer the Connie Taurus to my Corsair, as the Taurus has the cargo capacity for two ERTs worth of loot before I RTB.

[@KingFate20]

Pretty sure the bottom guns don't effect the top guns capacitors. I took them off the other day to test it and my other guns had the exact same number of shots with or without the bottom 2 size 5s.

[@AHMANNII]

I’ve enjoyed the Corsair; recently upgraded from a Cutty B and it feels like I’m flying its bigger, stronger brother. While I do miss the Black I would honestly buy it again and keep the Corsair. I’m sure 6 guns was amazing back in the day but the 2xS5s + 2xS4s are really nice still

[@shawnc5188]

@@KingFate20 I just tried an ERT with rubber banding NPCs that crashed into my Connie, so I went back in my Corsair. At all power to guns it’s 13-15 shots, and the recharge rate is quite fast, especially compared to my Connie (same Mil A components and M7A cannons)

[@shawnc5188]

@@AHMANNII lol, I had a MSR that was pretty useless, so I CCU’ed to a Corsair for the firepower. I now have a Zeus which is very zippy in the current patch, and it’s S4 guns are quite useful

[@AHMANNII]

@ Yeah the Zeus is def a good looking ship; have a buddy with one. IMO it’s an RSI Cutlass with a bit less cargo, atleast the ES variant.

[@yrovie]

I don’t own a Corsair, but I get the frustration. CiG keeps building and modifying ships for multiplayer, yet neglects core mechanics that would enhance crew gameplay. For example, multicrew ship logouts-if you design ships for crew use, make sure everyone can log off on the ship. This would speed up mission starts and maximize ship potential. CiG keeps doing things "Bass Ackwards"!

[@KingFate20]

My issue with this whole thing is that average turrerts make no sense for players. Twin size 1/2/3 turrets are IMO NPC seats. They aren't for getting kills, they are for zone control. Pepper the target's shields enough to get them to fly evasively or pull away before breaking shields. Turrets right now have super high sustained DPS, but it doesn't matter because you have no control of your own range and firing arcs (which are awful because turrets are generally in the stupidest spots). The only time a player would ever actually want to be in those seats, is if they were already on that ship for some other reason like mining. Sadly that is where we DON'T see turrets. The Mole should 100% have a remote turret or 2. So really they should just bite the bullet and add NPC crew that are just locked into seats. You hire them, then put them in seat slots like ship components and just use the current NPC turret AI (shoot at anything hostile to the pilot). NPC crew will 99% of the time just be seat warmers for turrets when they are added anyway. No one is risking having a Quantanium rock blow up in their face because a stupid computer is programmed to intentionally be worse than a player.

[@therevcloud]

i really hope they dont cave to the idea of making npcs intentionally shit. they need to keep to the old concept of the npcs being hard to identify from players

[@Ace-Brigade]

Remember when they said the co-pilot would be able to control the missiles? Yeah they can't get anything right that's why I refuse to give this company anymore money.

[@DanakarEndeel]

Such a kneejerk move to pull those fixed guns from the pilot and put it on a co-pilot who can't even see properly while also needing to control that remote turret up top. Instead CIG could have just changed those guns from S5 to S4, or turn those guns into an actual remote turret (while then automating the small one up top). But yeah, with the Redeemer nerf a week before CIG releases that Starlancer TAC which now got everything the original Redeemer had really feels like it's intentional. They nerf perfectly fine ships just to sell this new thing. Also no NPC crew, yet another 2 years waiting for SQ42, etc.etc. Heck, then there was John Crewe flat-out stating that the Galaxy wasn't going to get basebuilding while just one year back the Game Director was on stage during CitCon doing a basebuilding presentation where he specifically showed the Galaxy and stated it could build Small to Large structures. But John was all "nah fam, that's all speculative until the ship is ingame"; but had to do a 180 after he got slapped in the face with the receipts (and probably slapped by his boss too for creating a potential PR nightmare). So 5 hours later he had to post a retraction where the Galaxy would get a basebuilding module (but when is anybody's guess). This just reeked of more crap where they wanted to pull stuff away from one ship they sold with said features just to sell that deformed penis ship. Oh, and suddenly the Pioneer is now the ONLY ship that can suddenly build space stations; but ofcourse it's 'limited' so no CCUs; only the full price (and you won't even get LTI on it). I'm really starting to lose faith in CIG. Too many (intentional) crap happening, Marketing basically running the show, and zero communication. Merely another "Just 2 more years" and then in 2026 I expect that SQ42 will take another 2 more years because Chris saw some new pointless gimmick that he wants to put in (similar to that pointless 'bedsheet deformation' that nobody cares about).

[@AJ-em2rb]

i thought it was stupid to give the pilot 6 guns when the Corsair launched and i still have that opinion. as a proud Corsair owner, i don't really care one way or the other about the change, but i am worried that it's 4-player firepower may be nerfed as a result. the ship has 12 guns, but with this change only 10 will be usable at a time most likely as the copilot will be expected to choose between the remote turret up top or the chin guns.

[@Nosferatus29]

If you play alone, don't take ships with more than three players, CIG is putting multicrew in place and it will be worse later with the components that break, fires, etc...

[@alexpetrov8871]

we'll still be able fly molticrew solo without fighting

[@Astelch]

@@Nosferatus29 ironclad is and will be my only big ship. Imo I think it’s soloable bcuz it’s armored and will have a c2 cargo grid on steroids.

[@Nosferatus29]

@@alexpetrov8871 But maybe the others will want to fight you, and then, it will become very very painful to manage everything at the same time !

[@Nosferatus29]

@@Astelch Just be aware that large slow ships played solo will all be priority targets for all other players...

[@alexpetrov8871]

​@@Nosferatus29 >But maybe the others will want to fight you My 2 years experience in SC shows that there is like 5% of players who really want to fight you , and you can just run away from half of them. Which means about 2% of encounters will really endanger you when you play solo in multicrew ship. Just clench your teeth, press altF4 and relog.

[@straidenlagh5237]

It's another classic bait and switch. Keep in mind, I /do/ fly this multicrew with my friends. Thing is, I can't fill every seat every time. The pilot having access to the forward facing guns simply made sense. That's it. Having people on turrets with that? Was a blast. Now my three person crew? Has one person wanting to be on co-pilots seat for...for what exactly? to hit a single button when I say I'm hitting the button? To have a lack of actual player input in anything? The range on the bottom guns are so minimal that calling them decently turretable is a lie. The reason behind this is a lie. The connie still has as much if not more firepower at this point WITH full pilot control of the forward facing guns, and RSI is of course...Chris' favorite ship producer, and the connie is his favorite ship on record. Now, the corsair isn't dead, but who's to say they won't attempt to make changes /again/ because head honcho wants more cool RSI things out? Or because once again they change their mind on something at the last second and make sweeping changes? When balance is up to what the leads idea of what is 'cool' or what his 'favorite' is, you should never consider backing a game like that with your IRL money. Especially when we're going on ten years, with the last four or so being "SQ42 is only two years away guys!" Also, if anyone says "This ship SHOULD be nerfed, it's an exploration ship!" you're cracked. This ship ain't made for exploring. It barely has anything 'exploration like' in it. It was made to explore other peoples friggin cargo. Enhanced sensor suite my ass. It means nothing in the state the game is in now, and almost guaranteed years down the line it'll be a minimal boost to sensors. We all know CIG lies out their asses. They lie about the state of the game, they lie about their own hiring and workers conditions, they're going to also lie about balance after sales are made, and then push the new biggest thing like some used car dealership pushing lemons out of a lot. Don't buy ships with real money, end of story. You can believe and want the project to succeed, and hopefully be great...but be smart about it if you're going to. Get a base package, 40 dollars for something like this ain't bad at all.

[@stevenlong9632]

The Corsair gave up cargo space and missile count for those two extra pilot guns, it's in the design docs. Giving control of two main guns to the co-pilot with a small view and limited firing solution was just stupid and lazy. The Corsair sucked in MP crew play, now it sucks even more. And not a word from CIG about their intent going forward. If you are going to take away something, how about giving something back to make the ship better in MP.

[@garretthunter3381]

As a corsair owner, very dissapointed. It really kinda ruined my core gameplay as that was the ship I used for everything but now it’s slow, fragile, lumbering, AND has half the fire power it used to. It’s a worse Connie in every way other than looks and looks alone aren’t enough to save it. They’re should be an option to slave those bottom guns to the pilot or bump up the size of the two guns we can use, otherwise it’s just… sub average. And for them to use “balance” as a way to justify the halving of its damage output is rediculous, they did nothing about the f8 when they introduced it because they knew they could make money on it. Now that less people are buying the corsair and just having fun using it NOW it’s a problem…

[@Gofr5]

Corsair and Redeemer got done dirty. No ifs ands or buts.

[@manuelszczygielski565]

facts !!! i bought the deemer becuase of how it was advertised !!!!!

[@Cybersqueek]

They destroyed the character and feel of the Corsair with this nerf. I loved my Corsair so much that I bought one. However, now it upsets me so much that I only flew it once since the nerf. I hate to say it and it may be over the top but I feel betrayed and it has really soured my feelings for the game as a whole.

[@karsonkammerzell6955]

While I have issue with the fact that the ship's pilot firepower agency was a selling point confirmed during Q&A and left in for YEARS only to get pulled RIGHT before they unveil the Starlancer which really doesn't help the criticism, my REAL issue is how the ship was VERY clearly not made flyable with this intended. In concept art and such, yeah, it genuinely looks like a turret, but when they released it flyable that was no longer the case. No mention was ever made that the current state of it wasn't the intended use, either, NOR did they put out patch notes or any information until bug reports got dropped; then the answer was a nebulous, "It's intended, yeah we know it feels bad." And that's it. That's all anyone got. Not even a mention of their end goal with the ship and its role in multi-crew. So now defenders of the change are saying people are just whining, but that's not what most are complaining about. The complaints are that the entire thing screams rushed and, arguably, to sweeten new concept ship sales. No patch notes, no explanations until called out, no follow up about the future intent for the ship; nothing.

[@TheTankerTurtle]

Honestly I don't mind the idea of trying to make the Corsair more crew leaning. When engineering comes to play its going to force these type of ships to atleast have another friend, someone or something to help aid in such. So I can get behind the idea of it but what I can't get behind is the way they did it. The way they try to balance the ship is just a flat nerf vs a reorganization of how we play the ship. Right now the Corsair is left in a bad spot due to this base off of pve info. One solution would have been just to simply downsize the pilot guns by one and up size the gunner guns by one Another solution if they are dead set to having the copilot have two size fives is to set it up like the C2 gunner seat where moving between the two turrets is easy and simple aswell as giving the two size fives have more range of motion vs the small cone it has right now And last solution if they want to have all guns be able to fire at once. Give the co-pilot size 5s more range of motion aswell as adding another crew member to the ship either turning one of the crew rooms into a bunk bed so turns this ship from a four man to a five man and that new crew member would be in charge of engineering and gunning the top turret from the engineering room In the current state even before nerf one crew member would be engineer/gunner and would need to possibly leave the gun at some point to do engineering task. With adding another member to the crew it would allow both gunners to stay on the guns without running back to the back of the ship to do engineering tasks Even with another crew member it doesn't hurt the flow of the ship but improves it. Ursa rover can hold six dudes or you can do a cyclone and hover bike setup for ground vics and lastly for boarding enemy or trade ships you can rock a four man team with the pilot saying on board or three man if both engineer and pilot stay on board during such. I'm more in favor of making these ships more crew based but how they did it now is awful.

[@Taylosh545]

This game is slowly straying away from a solo space experience to a more coop/streamer mmo focused only game.

[@angerskarin9222]

that because they want it to be a mmo they said it many time, also multicrew ship are 200% for coop and shouldn't be soloable.

[@ghostinme.]

There is no solo in space . Think again what you say man . Or either you just can’t see it .

[@Frank-costanza]

​@ghostinme. The majority of the player base play solo. They'll be missing out on lots of money if they continue on this path.

[@ghostinme.]

@ the game was not meant for solo players . Players have to understand it . They have to be part of an objective not just lifeless sentient beings wandering doing random stuff .

[@Frank-costanza]

@@ghostinme. read their goals again, you seem to be mistaken

[@EvilSage42]

I'm gonna melt a bunch of my Drake ships for the MFD colour update alone, the new colour is horrible, looks too washed out like baby puke/peasoup, I enjoyed the hacker feel of the green display, made it feel more fixed on the fly aesthetic.

[@sandiguha]

4:30 You are saying this now that no incentive for playing together (such as progression system or special rewards), but when CIG would give you more incentive to play with others or as a clan, you would say otherwise, that CIG is leaning towards groups instead of solo players. Progression systems are for MMOs and RPG games and SC is none of them.

[@alm.8989]

people are gonna stop buying ships

[@3go3versor]

I pledged in 2013. I have every year or so I jumped back on to see what's up. I have a group of people that I usually try it out with. about a week ago we started up again. We have not been able to do anything. Can't mine with ROCs cause non of the nodes are minable. Tried bunker missions but get crime stats and fail because guards and hostiles spawn inside each other. So far only mining with a Mole has worked but that is still bugged cause doors wont open. This is outside of just jank bugs. Cant dock cause stations wont respond to hails. Power on ship not working, QT just not jumping, elevators not working, doors not working, SCU pods vanishing. I really want to play and enjoy the game, but 90% of the time spent is just dealing with bugs.

[@solidkreate5007]

This is the exact reason I stopped buying ships.

[@mcbrite]

This is the way! And from the ashes a Microsoft-Phoenix shall eventually rise! Trust the prophecy!!!

[@P5ykoOHD]

Melted my Inferno, melted my Redeemer (as it no longer fit the playstyle I used it for), Was going to buy the Ion ... but they nerfed it before I did (at least no loss there) ... and now I'm thinking about melting my Corsair too. Might hold off on melting it too soon, as I want to see if CIG will backtrack on their decision or not, but in a few months, it will also probably be melted. CIG needs to stop pulling these bait and switch moves, and if they're so worried some ships stole the spotlight, then instead of nerfing them, how about buffing others to incentivize players to buy those instead, promoting healthy variety and competition between ships ... You can't just sell something for about 300€ then change the terms of the deal later down the line and not expect people to be unhappy about it.

[@detpackman]

as a corsair owner its not that CIG balancing is the issue , its how they went about it is dumb . if there focus is to focus more on multicrew with the ship fine im ok with that if the changes actually did that , no instead we have a mulitrole situation where you loose firepower cuz the one person cant use both the guns and the remote and that the foward guns just dont have the mobility to make it a fun experience IMO CIG could have done this a correct way , instead of a lazy one . i would have preferred a change to the gun sizes and upped the turret sizes to balence it out . or a more work intensive would be to turn those forwards guns into the turret we saw in the concept art ETC either one would have made more sense then what CIG DID . i dont mind change if it makes sense , cuz i can then see CIG points , this change makes none

[@BLACKSYNTH]

You need powerful ships and things to work for, otherwise you might as well just rock a Cutless forever.

[@innominatecitizen]

Another point we can make is to work security and law enforcement in different sectors. Rebalancing seems to by trying to balance ships on a plane field as if everywhere they go is the Wild West. Eve online has got it right.

[@drancon101]

I personally have no issues with the Corsairs nerf, and im a Corsair owner. I will agree with the notion of CIG should have done more consideration in going about the nerf, but I guess it could've been worse. CIG's issue is that they have no idea what they're doing with nerfs, and they're going to keep making mistakes like this, its the reality of game development, especially so when it comes to SC. This may seem like a hot take, but people need to honestly stop buying ships from CIG, because they think that it'll be meta, or OP, solo or otherwise. People buying a Corsair, only because it had crazy firepower, or any other ship in that matter, need to realize that CIG are anti OP and anti meta, and will nerf a ship if its over preforming, and also you shouldn't buy a ship only because you think it'll be OP or meta. And also on top of the fact, that this change is most likely not even permanent, and that if people keep voicing their concerns to CIG, and complaining, they might revert the change, or make a more sensible change. It would be nice to have control for the four main guns given back to the pilot. But if thats not doable, then, at least in my opinion, make the two guns for the co-pilot turreted, so that they aren't just fixed forwards. Honestly, people probably would've been fine with the nerf, if they made the chin guns a turret for the co-pilot.

[@BigLD]

What blows my mind the same people who defend CIG for the nerf are the same people who cried when the Galaxy was announced was no longer for Base Building & cry for the same reason - its not what was advertised & its why people bought into it - the only difference is one is flight ready, one is concept People LOVE to argue when it doesn't affect them, but love to spew the same reason when it does affect them

[@kVidStream]

I'm giving CIG a big FU this November if they decide to F us further.

[@lordante4665]

i didn't see a single Corsair since it was nerfed. Great move from CIG: destroying a ship and making people never want to trust them again. They managed to close so many wallet just before the biggest sales of the year.

[@innominatecitizen]

Let’s hope many pilots remember this and change their ship buying habits. I’m not optimist though. As soon as the new shiny ships are revealed, the excitement and urge rushes in our vessels!

[@YouCountSheep]

SC needs missions where you are basically allowed just one ship, and you need some sort of vehicle, and beside a bigger target ship also quite a few smaller ones so it forces you to have gunners. And those missions should also have a really good reward. That is just an outline, but that is the only way people are genuienly forced to use multicrew. Even in big org events what usually happens you get maybe one slightly crewed multicrew ship and a ton of fighters. Its just more efficient. Its also not that hard to do to limit a mission to one bigger ship. All the mission has to give you is an item you have to have on your ship that does some sort of IFF scrambling and anyone who doesn't have one gets obliterated by sneaky low signature turrets that are in the mission area. Like Klescher defenses for example. But yeah for the ingame price the corsair was just a bit too strong, so ofc everyone got one and that drove the statistics up. ERTs are not different in a Connie, but people don't use them as much because of the cockpit struts and the sometimes iffy elevators and thats it. Thats my opinion on it. I bought a Taurus in game but obviously I had the money to get a Corsair. That was way before that nerf. And I only got the Taurus because of the tractor beam so I could flip ERT bounty soft death ships on moons to properly loot them or easily tractor the big cargo containers in a cozy seat rather than using the handheld one on a windy and sometimes rainy surface. Thats the only reason I spent a few millions more for what was the same firepower at that time.

[@jlGuitarGuy7]

The music, your voice and commentary, b-roll.. Really enjoy your videos👍

[@innominatecitizen]

@@jlGuitarGuy7 I’m glad you liked the video. Thanks for watching.

[@aitvaras5271]

Regardless of the initial promises, the rebalance was poorly thought through. The co-pilot is overloaded with tasks it needs to do now. It can't simultaneously shoot the turret and also manage the shields, the powermanagement, etc. The rebalance would have been better if the ship received a third seat that could take over the ship management.

[@0311matt]

yeah... I dont think I'll be pledging any more money to CIG after this year. It would be good if CIG had SOME kind of long term vision on what they want in the game before releasing multi-hundred dollar ships. I dont know if they lie to us, or themselves more.

[@mobius6772]

It's a little dirty. If i spent 300 bucks on a ship and they nerf it into not being useful those people have a right to be mad.

[@p5ychojoe138]

I never really planned on using it much for combat unless I somehow get roped into it as I intended 99.9% of my flight time to be solo. But now it just feels defenseless without a crew. Which on one hand, cool more reason to interact with others. On the other hand, blows when I'm unable to get a crew and wanna fly her. So, to the melt tank she goes much to my dismay.

[@karsonkammerzell6955]

It feels defenseless WITH a crew, lol. Enemy AI and ship combat missions aren't built to support the turret fantasy at all. They just joust you, there's no swarming, nothing. That's why people just used three ships + Corsair instead of a fully crewed Corsair. Side turrets and remote turret had next to nothing to do. And that's my problem with this change; it did nothing to promote multi-crew negate NO ONE wants to multi-crew in ANY ship except for KZbin. And now they want to do it even less in a Corsair, lol.

[@p5ychojoe138]

@@karsonkammerzell6955 I would like to clarify how it feels, more than the unholy impracticality of turrets and such ships provide. Yes, I was flying a brick with maneuverability comparative to a drunken whale, but at least the extra bite I had with the extra guns made me just a little more confident if shit did go down. Now I feel like I went from having a bite with some broken teeth with a few more missing.

[@PelenTan]

One of the biggest issue with this are CIG's lies about it. They said it's to balance. Things weren't out of balance. Full stop. Yeah, a lot of people were using the Corsair for what it was purchased for with real money. But that's not a balance issue. That's a preference issue. They said it was to encourage group-play. The co-pilot is reduced to pushing a single button. Then they compounded the lie by doubling down and saying "well they still have the gimble motion to control". Another lie. While you have a few degrees of motion, it's not even a tease. It's a lie about control. And then there is the lie about it always supposed to be that way. If that were true, they would have separate capacitors they would be running off of. That's what is really pissing people off about CIG. Lie after lie after lie.

[@vinct7023]

Alpha After alpha about alpha. Nothing in final, everything will change. You read concept AND translate it in written in stone.

[@PelenTan]

@@vinct7023 I'm guessing English isn't your first language. My point was that the anger isn't at the changes as much as it is over their _lying_ about the changes.

[@theamericanaromantic]

I think the sales numbers this IAE will be very telling

[@hawkzulu5671]

Let me break out my crystal ball.. Last year they were 4 million behind their all time record when IAE started .. remember it was the 'no $ until pyro .. its all crumbling' .. then day 1 of IAE CIG set an all time record for the most $ earned in a single day in the companies history and went on to smash their all time earnings record - yet Another year This year they will start IAE about 6 million behind last years all - time record ..can you guess whats going to happen next? ..IAE day 1 with the StarLancer, return of things to the store like the now flyable Polaris and other concept ships like the Ironclad and pioneer, flyable ships like the new hornet series and possible surprises like the fat - fury .. You honestly think CIG is not going to repeat and set a new record on IAE and then again at the end of the year with probably the biggest jump since 2020 when they hit 50 million in a year for the first time - to today when they earn 100 million easily

[@Storm-Cleaver]

The "Corsair Nerf" is still nothing compared to what's been done to the Ares or the 400i.

[@redbarchetta8782]

Why? Because when you buy a ship and then get that ship only to be told a few years later they'll nerf it you should be upset. You spent REAL MONEY on it. Would you like it if you bought a new car with a super charged V8, then two years later they come back in the middle of the night and replace it with a 3 cylinder out of a Geo Metro? Nah, doubt it.

[@shidera8936]

You playing an alpha. If you thought its balanced right away your are delusional

[@COMMANDERHAWK22]

on one hand your not wrong on the other they have been doing this for years and they wont stop because they have no reason not to nerf a ship in order to sell another one.

[@404inc]

Wtf Dude. U dont get it

[@AndreyBorisovBoris]

i would accept such changes if they extend the size 2 to size 3 or even 4 for side and back turrets and make the low 5 size gimbal working in two modes - 1st like it works now, the second one is remote turrets like A2 wit ability turn completely back.

[@jaype886]

RIP my god old ugly friend DRAKE Corsair. we both had a lot of fun, but unfortunately CIG doesn't grant us that. 😢

[@bigdaddy4432]

Spent a little over $1000 over the years for ships and paint etc.. I don't mind supporting the development of a game I believe in. But this incessant need to force those of us who dislike playing with others into having to have crew to be effective in ships we have spent real money on is asinine. If you want to give us more, bigger ships than original or more equipment etc that's fine, but making our investment, pledge, or subscription less than what we paid for is a non-starter. I flat out refuse to spend another penny on anything CIG tries to sell me until this stops. I'm sure they will lose all kinds of sleep over this, but our wallets are all they care about so we should speak with them.

[@Tate_THG]

I got SC about 6 months ago, I was grinding for this ship was 100k away from buying when the balances were wiped I took a break until now was preparing for the grind again just to see this…

[@innominatecitizen]

It’s frustrating. But no matter how we feel, it is a pre-release game and prone to frequent changes along the way. Can the developers navigate the process better than this? Absolutely!

[@seanreed1158]

If they were overly worried about this ship, then here is a simple fix. Remove the 2 S4 guns and leave the pilot with the 4 S5. Add maybe a missile rack in the place of the now gone guns. Now we have a Drake Andromeda ta dah. Being as the Connie is the direct competitor. The co-pilot seat can no longer go down into that area of the ship. Now as an OWNER of a Cosair before the cult of offended jumps my bones here if I don't declare to own one and have flown it around for a while to have an opinion on the matter. I spent my hard earned Denaro on this sucker as well and I am highly put out by the fact that Solo Pyro is a bit of a bummer, but not the end of the world. The nerd that blessed off on this in my opinion needs to be smacked. They went full retard on the nerf and will have to fix it to get the players off of their ass. I think the aforementioned idea is a reasonable one way more so than them trying to sell us on the half assed nerf they put forth. That or Starlancer/Constellation sales will go up and this ship will become a relic only the true die hards will fly. Back to the Cutti Black for most of us Drake owners it would seem.

[@AWARHERO]

Never NERF stuff , always BUFF everything else

[@bic255]

looking forward to take down javelins with my aurora

[@Dazvanu]

For less they desteoyed the redeemer, corsair really was a monster, really unbalnaced both in firepower than tankiness.

[@PSC4.1]

Avenger Players: You can't Nerf Me into forced multi-crew big dog since I can only have one person!

[@louisfrederich8777]

Exactly, plus it’s an exploration ship, not Gunship… I have both Corsair and Redeemer and the Redeemer nerf annoys me a bit more because it was it’s role… I still love both anyways, you just have to stop playing solo, I use my Scorpius for that to destroy things 🤷🏻‍♂️

[@scepeon]

I think it would be better if they removed the S4 guns from the wings and put them in the co-pilot's turret, and returned the S5 guns to the pilot's control.

[@jsbfe9395]

Where is this video from? Is there a space station with this landing pads configuration currently in the game?

[@innominatecitizen]

It's Port Olisar; not currently in the game.

[@swaroopr34]

I love the Corsair soo much it was the only ship in my hangar for years until i bought a F7A both are actually good together even though this disappointing I’ll keep it forever🥲 never spending a single penny on RSI again lol

[@innominatecitizen]

Until the next big shop sale! But I hear you. You have a nice duo.

[@solidicone]

The main issue is what is best for the game as it is now versus when these ships were first designed and advertised. Ship combat has changed alot in the past year, and its not done yet. Most of the things that will define what these ships can or cannot do isn't even in the game yet. For example the hammerhead. Right now its a glorified floating casket, sure it can spit alot of DPS but it doesn't have the umph it needs to justify just how many people you have to cram into it in order to actually use it to its full potential. One guy in a corsair can and does regularly beat a fully crewed hammerhead. Once actual ship armor is in you're going to see where the multicrew ships are going to be the apex predators of the verse. The hammerhead with those additions could sit perfectly still and have 2-3 people in one man fighters shooting at it and it just won't care. They won't have the required punch to actually bring it down. Changes like this are happening now so they can actually ease people into the idea that multicrew ships are meant to be just that, multicrewed and the benefit is they are behemoths, but you just cant get the most out of them as a solo player. Maybe with AI blades or crew members it will help but they will never be as effective as an actual ass in that seat.

[@rewerker566]

This is why I’m not buying more ships!

[@mattslivar5174]

You can Get them ingame its your own fault it you pend real money

[@Nemoticon]

This was proof that most owners only liked the Corsair because of it's firepower.... remove that one selling point and those 'loyal' owners immediately melted it. They didn't actually care about anything else, not the personality, the utility or about the intended purpose of the ship, not the assumed purpose of it. Additionally, it was NEVER a solo ship, the Corsair has ALWAYS been a 4 man crew ship, there is NO argument or debate against that FACT. We all know that aspects and details of the ships are subject to change, from day 1 over 10yrs ago, there's a disclaimer on EVERY ship. The backers need to know what's going on YES but that doesn't entitled you to be a poiled child because you failed to manage your own expectations and made assumptions despite the facts being made clear from the start. The community saying "CIG nerf ships on purpose" are no different to those who copy paste 'Scam Citizen' everywhere. They're just not following development.

[@kobodera8261]

Honestly, as a corsair owner I don't mind the switching of the bottom guns to the co-pilot nearly as much as I mind the fact that the bottom guns have such a bad fire arc. If that ark was increased I wouild not mind it at all actually. In fact, I would like to take the changes further. Instead of having pea shooters in the turrets and big guns at the hands of the pilot, it want the damge and gun sizes to be reversed. Big ships should have no pilot controlled guns, or at best pea shooters, while the turrets can have a lot bigger firepower. Having a pilot with thousands of DPS and a turret gunner in the low hundreds is just wrong if you ask me... and it makes it so that having two ships is almost always better than having one fully crewed ship. If they move the majority of the DPS to the turrets the general SC community would have a fit of apoplexy for sure, but from my standpoint that would make multicrew not only a novelty but a necessity... and no, I am against blades and npc crew in a MMO setting. Oh, and also... if you have the crew there should NEVER be a silent gun. Every single gun should be able to fire from a ship at the same time if you have the crew to man them. Not like the Reclaimer where you have 7 guns but can only fire three of them at the same time... that is bollocks to me.

[@ShadeSide21]

The copilot guns are useless now, so what is the point of that? For me, they just rush a decision just to sell new ships forgetting to sort out the copilot situation properly. Because no way somebody at cig can think "oh now is good, the bottom guns work better now". At least make them more mobile with a better view

[@karsonkammerzell6955]

From the launch Q&A, verbatim: Q: Does the pilot control the 4x S5 front AND 2x S4 ring wing guns? A: The pilot controls these weapons by default, although in the future (like other ships) their control will be able to be delegated to another station. They had two years to change their mind and only did so just before unveiling new ships, without mentioning the change anywhere until called out, nor even giving additional input on a new vision for the Corsair? That's incredibly suspect. People complaining that people are complaining either were never around during the Corsair's marketing or forgot. If these critics had a ship they bought and paid for changed from what was stated at sale in this fashion (no word, no plan, no communication about it) they'd be pissed too. They just want to be on the bandwagon of hating anyone who owned a Corsair because reasons, I guess.

[@michaelmichaelagnew8503]

Well most of us saw this comming when it was introduced. You know what this isn't the first ship they have done this too. You also know what its been obvious that they purposly bait and switch to get people to buy new ships comming out so they can keep the cash flow then nerf them later when another ship comes out.

[@Mimas810]

every new ship gets the...i call it.. hype-armor. and they just take away the old hype-armor from the corsair. its a multicrew explorer. not a gun ship. and before they change the corsair to a gunship(and force exploration players to buy a new exploration ship) they would build an extra drake gunship for the people that have use the corsair as a gunship.

[@vonrosphe3098]

The Corsair was never a explorer ship. It was always a Drake "explorer" ship. The "explorer" was only a Drake marketing gag. And CIG could easily change other stats of the ship. Make it slower. More sluggish. Less durable. But taking away two guns from the pilot was a bad move. Apart from having only the highest kill count because of silly missions.

[@flaxensaxon6052]

​@@vonrosphe3098 yeah I'm sick of these goons claiming it's an explorer. Cig said from the beginning it has no dedicated scanning suites, and it's radars that are state of the art are state of the art for drake, which means average. They sold it as a pirate ship with a lot of pilot guns.

[@Runefrag]

More than half of the """ship classifications""" are completely misleading at best.

[@imushavem4061]

If you go back to the promotional commercial for the Corsair, you'll hear a pirate shanty singing in the background. It was never intended to be a "traditional' exploration ship.

[@ModularNites]

Their reason is 'based on data' they didn't know that if you give a pilot 4 size 5's and 2 size 4's it would rack up more kills for that ship ...... not the smartest kids on the block then hmm.

[@cyranobuckminster1970]

CIG's grand plans for the future are all well and good but they also need to keep players (even we lowly solo players) engaged and interested in playing NOW. 1.0 is still years away. Even the vaunted 4.0 - if it even comes out in 2024 at all - will just be a shell of what was promised. If I have to re-focus my interest - and income - towards another game in the meantime, then come back to Star Citizen a few years down the road when it's closer to launch, I will. Assuming they don't continue to erode the trust of their loyal player-base with bait-and-switch ship sales and ever-moving goal-posts, in which case the wheels will eventually fall off completely and there will never be a launch.

[@therevcloud]

they need to do some actual basic balancing already. leaving ships like the 890jump with the hp of a corsair for years is downright retarded and thats just one of hundreds of examples of common sense balancing fixes that could be handled by just one guy adjusting the numbers to something that at least makes SOME sense.

[@littlefoot2869]

bait and switch was galaxy we are never going to see that base mod ever they said to shut us up

[@MoDeLi370]

Yea no the corsair is done all they had to do was nerf the size of the guns since they upped litterally everythings gun up by 1 then on top of doing what they did it looks stupid when it shoots. Turrets are multicrew not pilot guns the drake design language is to have powerful weaponry. They fucked it im sad i bought it cause it looks like a ship from star wars, now it looks stupid while in use im sad. But they dont do this on purpose it does suck though.

[@cobaltblue1975]

I melted my Corsair and used some of the credits to get the Zeus CL. I won't be putting any new money into the game. I no longer trust them. They do this repeatedly. I have a Constellation Taurus and I'm fully expecting them to pull the same crap again when its time to peddle the next big thing. I bet you these ships would be perfectly balanced upon release if there were laws that forced them to refund money to match future nerfs.

[@Starkiller5177]

I mean when the ship was almost released CIG literally said it and showed it off as a really good crew ship with its centered engineering room. It was nerfed yeah but honestly its still really good and if you bought it expecting solo gameplay you just weren't paying any attention.

[@Fractal379]

Small time = Marvel Snap - Buy cards that do X at purchase, but in a few months it might be a completely different card. Big time - Star Citizen - Buy ships ^^ The Conundrum: Are game companies right to balance their games at the expense of the player?

[@ToastyClam]

I started 2 years ago. It has always boggled my mind that that huge ship was the best solo ship in ANY situation

[@karsonkammerzell6955]

Here's the thing; it wouldn't stay that way even unnerfed the moment actual engineering was added and everyone knew that. The only reason it was succeeding was because the AI is dumb as a stump, multi-crewing is pointless with how the missions are designed, and earning money has been all about speed running missions as fast as possible.

[@AHMANNII]

Yeah, it’s still a really strong solo now, imo. But as much of a hot take and unpopular opinion as this is; I agree very much with making this ship less of a killing machine solo. It is an exploration/expedition vessel after all.

[@jodofe4879]

It was not. Far from it. Corsair was/is slow and sluggish, it has a massive blind spot and it is not very durable for a ship of its size. The only thing the Corsair had going for it was its pilot-controlled firepower, which means that the only thing the Corsair was really good at was PvE combat because PvE combat in Star Citizen is just a turkey shoot and having a bit more firepower means you can get the chore done slightly faster and earn more money in less time. The Corsair was a good money-earner, which is why it was popular. It wasn't really good at much else. Now that it has lost its main feature, the Corsair no longer really has a function. Players have moved on to the Connie Taurus, which is now easily the best PvE ship in the game since it has almost the same firepower as the pre-nerf Corsair, a larger cargo bay and much more durability. It is also cheaper. In other words, the nerfs didn't fix anything, they just created a new PvE meta ship that everyone is flying to earn money with.

[@jodofe4879]

@@AHMANNII The Corsair is not en exploration vessel. It doesn't have the dedicated scanners, mapping tables and other special equipment that every exploration vessel has. The Corsair is an exploration vessel in the same way the Cutlass is a medium freighter. These are in-game designations and the fact of the matter is that Drake can't straight up advertise its ships as "pirate gunship". Hence they are disguised as freighters or expedition ships even though they are clearly not as good at performing those roles as actual, dedicated freighters and expedition ships.

[@AHMANNII]

@ huge fuel and quantum stores make it exploration. Like being able to travel long distances and do ground exploration. You can’t tell me that it doesn’t count cause it’s only an in game designation when it being considered a pirate vessel is also an in game designation lol

[@BlackLethalDragon]

The only thing that might scrap up confidence in it being a solo-friendly ship is when they add the AI modules so multi0crew turrets become automated

[@IceSki117]

"The end of the Corsair as we know it" is probably the best statement. It's not killing the Corsair, just CIG bringing it more in line with their plans.

[@CrispyMuffin2]

Wasn't it a dedicated explorer as well? I always thought it was a bit weird to have such a ship basically behave like a Corvette or Frigate

[@elruchal]

@@CrispyMuffin2 had no sense. I enjoyed giving it a try 1st days, but had no sense. Too powerful

[@ChannelHandlePending]

​@@CrispyMuffin2 Not a dedicated explorer, even if it was it has less pilot firepower now than the aquila but with non of the bells and whistles. the aquila comes with, like a snub fighter, a very well placed (at least compared to the corsairs turrets) turret with 2x size 3's on it, a dedicated scanning station that makes in an explorer, and so on. Not to mention all the connies have a larger cargo grid than the corsair and at minimum I think have the same missile payload. So if the corsair needed to be nerfed this badly because of the extra 2 size 4 guns why did they buff the connies at the same time as they pushed the nerf through?

[@karsonkammerzell6955]

In line with what vision? They stated at the launch of the ship that it was SUPPOSE to be up-gunned because it's the DRAKE theme; sheetmetal ship, questionable amounts of firepower. They said the pilot having all those guns was intended. Hell, even in-lore they stated that the ONLY reason DRAKE calls it an expedition/explorer ship was to avoid taxes for giving it that much firepower, lol. The reason people are upset is because they ADMITTED this was a stop-gap, quick fix, and that they know it doesn't feel good for players to fly the ship. Then said NOTHING about what they're actually going to do to address that. People are upset because they never put it in patch notes and ONLY admitted they did anything when bug reports came out. That is NOT the practice of someone trying to sell a redesign or convince the community a ship needs a change of scope; that's people hiding shit and hoping no one notices.

[@eoconnor2000]

I like how you said CIG nerfed the Corsair because of the data. Could it be there are a lot of solo players and they love this ship more than any other ship hence the data shows this ship has higher kills than any other ship. This one was a blow, I know these are pledge ships but to a backer it is still an investment. I have several ships still in concept and the ships I do have are being nerfed. No ship is safe. The best recommendation is dont buy ships with real money.

[@midtown3221]

I melted my Corsair IMMEDIATELY when it was first confirmed in a video. I have turned to the Connie Taurus and it is better. A blessing in disguise for me.

[@Tbernard-s2n]

This disregard for the players cost them $700 that I know I would have spent during IAE. IF the corsair nerf had been done with care as opposed to with a hammer, I could be more understanding of their reasons. The fact that the corsair is more expensive then the Taurus ( I hate the connies so much I won't fly them ) but now is much less capable of a ship, really gets under my skin.

[@jaykay5838]

I don't even play the game anymore, i just watch videos. I have 3 specific ships i feel they screwed me over on, the Hornet MKI, The 400i , and teh Corsair. I gave up. They can have my money, i'll cut the loss , and just watch from the sidelines.

[@stibosis]

its odd that the corsair got a nerf when the connie didn't and then they drop zeus with only 2 guns the starlancer with 4 guns on it. with the delay of engineering the point of multicrew is backburnered its only purpose was to make other ships more viable which in theory is good but still terrible in execution.

[@ASMR_cafe]

Yeah to be honest I was on the edge about buying a more expensive ship, I'm really loving the game, and now... with this corsair nerf... all I can think is what's going to happen to my ship in the future? And it straight up makes me not want to buy ANYTHING until they're done fucking it up! Just focus on making elevators work! Focus on making Servers work! You have enough work to do, why are you insisting on unsetting the community? Let them have fun!?

[@christophercurtis9392]

As someone who owned a Corsair, Redeemer, and Ion... I sold my fleet and walked away. 5k lesson learned. CIG are fucking Scammers

[@Fire-Bound]

The Corsair has a 10% DPS difference than a connie, and it looses half of its HP for that. Don't even pull the "corsair is OP BS" you just don't want your precious connie to have a rival. not directed at you Innominate

[@rclines001]

Mine still works pretty good. Feels more like my old Taurus that only had 2x S4 and 2x S5. I don't get the uproar.

[@Czejenesku]

can anyone tell me why lag pip is better?

[@aaronwestbrook107]

Cause you'll have the full view of the ship in your crosshair opposed to the pip out in front which takes your eyes off target and only focused on the pip😉

[@ALEX_JOTA]

RIP, beloved Corsair. 😔

[@Maxxmentum]

Any ship that functions well as designed could be in danger of nerfing or worse stupid nerfing. Buyer beware.

[@Zamugustar]

All they had to do was remove the wing guns...Then it would have the exact same pilot controlled front facing 4S5s that the Connie's have. As of now I am probably going to CCU to an Aquila as it has the better HP, the same shields, better pilot controlled firepower, more cargo capacity that is easier to access, and the scanner turret. This ship should not be outgunned by the Taurus...

[@EdwardDragon96]

Except it would then be weaker than the Connie aswell because the Connie has double the health and a metric f*ckton of missiles.

[@LuluGamingDK]

can still do ERT with it so... ya i think ppl for get that it s EXPLORER ship and not a combat ship lol That happen to be meta for pve/pvp in alot of ways. Also its over all DPS is not lower, if you look at the foreing rate it was buffed up so even with the fewer guns on pilot.. it over all dps did not go down for poilt. But the ships over all dps did go up for crew gameplay

[@aiur1645]

wouldn't be taking away wepon size or capacitor load an even bigger nerf than taking away gun control. yes you need another person now but you do still have the same firepower on the ship, just not under one persons controll. 4 S5 + 2 S4 is quite some rediculus amount of firepower

[@heraklesfarnese960]

A Corsair nerf was needed, but there has to be a better solution. Just make it like 6xS4 for the pilot or something like that. The same problem with the connie. Why have Freighters and "Explorers" with more firepower than ANY military ship. Just makes no sense.

[@alexpetrov8871]

1:03 " they bought this ship for It's solo capability" - this capability exists only because of extremely dumb dogfighting AI and rediculous PVE BH content where S5 cargo ships play a role of criminal cahoots )))

[@TheModelOmega]

They should have lowered the ship armor in my opinion, embracing the glass cannon aspect of the ship.

[@TokonF]

I dont care about putting those weapons to the co pilot. However, not putting them on a full turret makes it pointless. Plus you either have those guns or the top turret. It the co-pilot front guns were a ball turret like the side guns i wouldn’t have an issue. Also this wont stop me from flying the corsair. I like it cause of the look not the fire power.

[@neoenergy2929]

Nobody can realy say a ship is ready for solo without ki blades and engineering gameplay in the game. we will see more extreme balance in the future and we all know it. if could be that we become four guns back for the pilot.

[@Acklend]

they put back the guns to pilots and leave it no one cares but them solo's players don't care about group play due to not every one is a minor currently. the copilot has the back turret and radar missles and power management why would you lower forwared fire power, yes the ship is an exporer class ship but the drake corsair has issues already now this, shields and armor this gun issue will be more apparent when those funcitons come on line. but more and more they are killing solo play and forcing group ply dynamic, they just being stupid at this moment the drake has group play but its main is a solo that can compete against other area's. still its not best in slot its a dps or glass cannon, but again they make more mistakes and not fix them and sell the galaxy as a pipe dream instead of fixing it. the Galaxy is the hugest mist opertunity they had, it could have been a good link in the supply chain for many functions. the back of the hanger bay should been able to fit two prospectors and run them arround, that would be equal to what the Orca dose in eve able to transport to mining ships to location. then followed by others that can get to site like a mole and expanse. but its more mechanics in a mining fleet then dropping the ball all the time. but it still could be like that the prosspector is only a size 2 ship so its not a strech to get that to happen. and i was thinking for the module of the ship the front were vehicals and box storage should always be different, a vehical bay and a cargo bay shouldn't over lap like it dose now, but with the starlancer it looks like they are picking up on that fact. the module idea is good for this type of ship speaking back to the galaxy and instead of having to pull bags with the mining mod in it just have it doc on the belly of the galaxy to trasfer ore. there in space it can be done. more to it but that is one way to look at it. back to the corsair it didn't need to have anything done to it, it was just fine the way it was, their data is faulty at best, infact its wrong due to this, armor isn't in game yet they should stop before they really upset every one. put it back and just wait. don't need new ships just fix the one s the have on back log. BUT they can't they are stuck on this money issue to get revenue they must bring in ships 2 to 3 times a year to keep budgets going. but they must get more focused on the back end ( servers and upgrading to the newer server and data base systems) just think what they could do with the new nivida systems for the back bone, 10k ppl all in the same place might be posible.. ^.^ good video again. but hopping they un do what they did to the corsair. its my 2nd mission runner, i have a few ships that i use depending on what im duing. and this ship is a prime get their and shoot for the dps forward guns. now i am not going to be able to speed run through crt's as quickly but doable and others not going to happen lost to much dps to get there.

[@joshhobson2340]

Every ship I have is in the pits atm. F8C, Carrack and now the Corsair. I honestly hate every decision CIG is making and really don't know if ill ever be back on the game. Playing it feels like a chore. Its just not fun.

[@sandiguha]

I think the balance should be pushed towards multi-crew experience. People are always riled up about something. If you want solo experience, buy a solo ship, you can't expect fly a Bengal carrier by yourself alone. Most of the people are introverts and don't have friends, so they just want every ship to be solo ship just like Elite D. It might be CIG's ploy to sell more ships but as a Space fan, I think they did a right choice.

[@Gregoses]

so many people, me included, are now considering the starlancer max instead of the corsair

[@RtannerW-]

That’s what CIG wants

[@Strange-Viking]

Dont, it will suck. All of the penis shaped ships suck, this one will too and later on they will nerf it. Actually dont buy anything at all. Just stay with what you have and get things ingame.

[@hawkzulu5671]

@@RtannerW- The StarLancer Max AND the TAC have less pilot controlled fire power than the 'nerfed' corsair

[@RtannerW-]

I don’t think I said anything about pilot controlled firepower…

[@Durion7]

Pissing of the people that are paying your bills... CIG needs the players much more than the Players need CIG. Without the people financing their entire Company they are all unemployed. Without CIG we just have to go back playing something else.