Welcome to Star Citizen Base
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing topics, give reputation to other members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.

RSI Constellation: Is the P52 the ONLY ship it can carry?

64 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

I feel like having only a Snubnose Point Defense is going to be dangerous for this. A crew of 4. Complete practicality and crew will only have a Turret gunner, pilot, and fighter pilot. There's one free slot if I've read it right. So, I feel that eventually it will be possible to attach landing struts to these types of large ships so you can dock them on the side of the ship and carry them in exchange for cargo space and being sneaky (a fighter sticking off? No hiding that one.) The Caterpiller can also hide a fighter escort on its outside hold with some mods, so I think the Constellation can be modded to do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

@T3rran - The Constellation has a crew of four indeed:

  • Constellation pilot
  • Dorsal turret gunner (default)
  • Ventral turret gunner (upgrade)
  • P52 pilot
No free crew slot as far as I understand it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The Caterpiller can also hide a fighter escort on its outside hold with some mods, so I think the Constellation can be modded to do the same.

Oooh, where did you hear this? Any link?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

@T3rran - The Constellation has a crew of four indeed:

  • Constellation pilot
  • Dorsal turret gunner (default)
  • Ventral turret gunner (upgrade)
  • P52 pilot
No free crew slot as far as I understand it.

I predict that the Constellation's fighter will use some of the ship's 35 ton cargo capacity, so some players will opt to leave their P52 elsewhere to maximize cargo, thereby leaving an open crew slot.

Crew members can also repair the ship and possibly perform other useful tasks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The real question is why anyone would ever man a turret when they could be fighting next to you in a full-fledged fighter of their own. Presumably even an RSI Aurora is more powerful than a dude in a turret. I'm aware there are specialized situations where it might be used, like if your friends are all far away from you and you need help you can apparently get them to drop in on your instance instantaneously and help out, but in general when you are planning out missions with your friends I'm sort of wondering what the point of turrets are. I bet that AI will be manning them 90% of the time, because it's simply more effective to use a pilot in a separate ship and 99% of the time your limitation is going to be number of players, not number of ships... The P52 is a little more compelling, hopefully it can be upgraded to be competitive with any other fighter other than lacking jump capability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

@Sancus: Your answer is on the 2nd page.

I think you're over-looking the fact that there will be a lot more people playing Star Citizen when it's released than only the ~30,000 backers. Star Citizen would be considered an abysmal failure if that happened.

Most players won't have insured ships. There will be players who lose their ships and cannot afford to replace them immediately. Those players could be hired to serve as crew members aboard other players' ships.

Even if a player has their own ship, some might choose to crew aboard a ship so they can accumulate credits without endangering their un-insured ship, so they can sell it and combine their earned credits to buy a new and better ship.

Some players might prefer to be turret gunners instead of pilots.

Some players might prefer to hone their dogfighting skills using an insured snub fighter instead of a ship that is lost if destroyed.

And, as you mentioned, lower-ranking clan members could be required to serve aboard the multi-crew ships of higher-ranking members to assist them.

So there are numerous reasons why some players will want to serve aboard another player's ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

None of those reasons really stand up to examination, I'm afraid.

Most players won't have insured ships. There will be players who lose their ships and cannot afford to replace them immediately. Those players could be hired to serve as crew members aboard other players' ships.

Well, actually, we know for a fact that pretty much all players WILL have insured ships because insurance is cheap:

Like in real-life insurance should be a relatively small part of your regular in game expenses which will also include paying landing fees, trade tariffs (if in a system with lots of infrastructure and law and order), fuel (if you don’t collect it yourself from a gas giant), buying cargo to trade, hiring help, making upgrades to your ship or even buying a whole new ship.

Even if a player has their own ship, some might choose to crew aboard a ship so they can accumulate credits without endangering their un-insured ship, so they can sell it and combine their earned credits to buy a new and better ship.

Could be, but given that insurance isn't very expensive and that most players will earn more than they lose over time(this has to be the case, because anyone who constantly loses more than they gain will quit the game.) this seems pretty unlikely. Again, everyone will have insurance. It's a cheap, base-level expectation, not unusual.

Some players might prefer to be turret gunners instead of pilots.

It's very safe to say that this won't be the case on average, very rarely it might be if the player doesn't really feel like paying attention to the game, but the way turrets appear to be designed in that they cover a portion of the hull, the turret gunner is going to be spending a lot of time staying alert and bored and not much actual time playing. That's a tailor-made recipe for fatigue. I predict turret gunning is going to be boring as heck, unless they change the design so you can control multiple turrets at once. Then it might actually be a fun role. But manning one turret covering 30 degrees of space in a Retaliator is going to be pretty damn boring. You can find out how boring by playing Planetside 2, and manning a belly gun on a Galaxy. Yeah, it's amusing while you're on the way to the actual fight, but you want to get out of there pretty damn quick :P You spend most of your time unable to fire because targets are not in your field of view. This is actually something that computers are far better at than humans pretty much by definition.

And, as you mentioned, lower-ranking clan members could be required to serve aboard the multi-crew ships of higher-ranking members to assist them.

If I'm a high-ranking clan member, I would want the assistance of a ship with many times the power of a turret over the assistance of someone in my turret, I assure you. These kinds of pseudo-roleplaying reasons are not an effective incentive in the face of major power/engagement disparities.

Some players might prefer to hone their dogfighting skills using an insured snub fighter instead of a ship that is lost if destroyed.

Like I said, I think the P52 is actually a bit more compelling, especially if it's powerful enough to go toe-to-toe with most fighters in-game, even if it does so via greater maneuverability rather than firepower. It actually sounds like it's flexible and interesting. My objection is mostly to turrets, because like I said, 80% of your time in a turret is spent sitting there waiting for a target. Not the case with the P52.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

None of those reasons really stand up to examination, I'm afraid.

Well, actually, we know for a fact that pretty much all players WILL have insured ships because insurance is cheap:

The correct word choice would be "all players CAN have insured ships...". You cannot make unqualified blanket statements on what YOU assume EVERY player will choose to do, specifically whether they'll purchase insurance for their ships or not.

There will always be players who are willing to take risks to get further in the game or save money. An easy example could be that a player's ship insurance lapses because they didn't pay it for whatever reason, and then their ship gets destroyed. It doesn't matter how it happened or why they don't have insurance; it can and will happen. Players will inevitably get burned by their choices, lose their ships, and might not have the money to replace them.

When that happens, becoming a crew member on another person's ship could be their only option.

Could be, but given that insurance isn't very expensive and that most players will earn more than they lose over time(this has to be the case, because anyone who constantly loses more than they gain will quit the game.) this seems pretty unlikely. Again, everyone will have insurance. It's a cheap, base-level expectation, not unusual.

More unqualified assumptions. "Everyone will have insurance." Everyone? Everyone? So if a single person doesn't have insurance, you're automatically wrong, thereby invalidating whatever your point is.

It doesn't matter how inexpensive ship insurance will be, there will always be players who will choose not to buy it, forget to pay it, or cannot afford to pay it. CR's list of everything else the player will have to pay for on a regular basis only supports my argument that players might choose not to pay for optional insurance.

It's very safe to say that this won't be the case on average, very rarely it might be if the player doesn't really feel like paying attention to the game, but the way turrets appear to be designed in that they cover a portion of the hull, the turret gunner is going to be spending a lot of time staying alert and bored and not much actual time playing. That's a tailor-made recipe for fatigue. I predict turret gunning is going to be boring as heck, unless they change the design so you can control multiple turrets at once. Then it might actually be a fun role. But manning one turret covering 30 degrees of space in a Retaliator is going to be pretty damn boring. You can find out how boring by playing Planetside 2, and manning a belly gun on a Galaxy. Yeah, it's amusing while you're on the way to the actual fight, but you want to get out of there pretty damn quick :P You spend most of your time unable to fire because targets are not in your field of view. This is actually something that computers are far better at than humans pretty much by definition.

Not only are you making more assuptions, but you're not even using common sense.

Of course players won't want to man a turret for hours at time. And they won't. Presumably they'll only need to man the turret if there's a reason to, such as if the ship comes under attack, or if the ship is travelling through a known dangerous system where it probably will be attacked.

The rest of the time the crew members could be doing other things aboard the ship. Maybe they can craft weapons and items. Maybe they can upgrade or tweek components of the ship. Maybe they can be searching for new missions to earn credits, or checking prices for ships or upgrades. Maybe they can operate the ship's other systems, like sensors or mining tools or refining tools. Maybe they'll be content chatting with their crewmates. We don't know yet.

So your baseless assertion that no one will want to be a turret gunner because they'll be stuck in the turret doing nothing is a shameful combination of assumptions, ignorance, and failure of imagination.

If I'm a high-ranking clan member, I would want the assistance of a ship with many times the power of a turret over the assistance of someone in my turret, I assure you. These kinds of pseudo-roleplaying reasons are not an effective incentive in the face of major power/engagement disparities.

You're assuming that turret weapons will be weaker than the weapons controlled by the ship's pilot. Using the Constellation as an example, it has 2 Behring M3A Laser Cannons on Class 1 fixed hardpoints, presumably firing forward. Whereas its dorsal turret has 2 Behring M5A Laser Cannons. I'll hazard a guess that the M5As are more powerful than the M3As. And of course the turrets have wider firing arcs, so they can be brought to bear against enemies that aren't only in front of the Constellation. I'd wager that a player manning the Constellation's turret will score more kills than the pilot of the Constellation -- especially if the enemy ships are smaller, more nimble starfighters.

Also, a player in another ship will probably be more concerned about their own survival (and their ship) than protecting another ship. Whereas a turret gunner will do everything they can to protect the ship they're aboard. So if I had to choose between a player in my Constellation's turret versus in their own ship, I'd prefer my turret.

Like I said, I think the P52 is actually a bit more compelling, especially if it's powerful enough to go toe-to-toe with most fighters in-game, even if it does so via greater maneuverability rather than firepower. It actually sounds like it's flexible and interesting. My objection is mostly to turrets, because like I said, 80% of your time in a turret is spent sitting there waiting for a target. Not the case with the P52.

Lemme get this straight. You claim that no one will operate a ship's turret because 80% of the time they'll spend sitting there waiting for a target -- but you assume that players will be more interested in flying the P52. How is that different? If a ship only sees action 20% of the time, and the other 80% is boring nothing, why would a player be happier flying a P52 than sitting in a turret? They're still going to be bored.

As the owner of a Constellation, I'm not going to deploy my P52 unless there's good reason to. It would be a waste of fuel for my P52 to fly alongside my Constellation constantly, for no reason.

And as I pointed out, players won't be sitting in turrets 80% of the time doing nothing, because they could be doing other things aboard the ship.

So none of your arguments really stand up to scrutiny either, because you've done nothing but make assumptions about how other people will choose to play the game. Consequently, you're the last person who should be speaking for anyone but yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

That disscusion get beside the target.You are both right and wrong.Chris stated that you can jump from where ever you are in universe, as long as you are docked into a friends turret!So no boring times as you only do it when needed. You actually do not need to be onboard.For the P52 you are correct, you will maybe have boring times, who knows Chris mind, I do not.And Insurance is the same, the fact is, insurance will climb bound to what sector you are flying in or through and how often ya lose ya ship.So it could be, that we see pilots without a insuranced ship, caused by not paid Insurance. And if none is lending them a ship (why I should???), then they would have to do other jobs on the side to get money and their insurance paid.Could that be include time were you are bored, yes why not, people should be punished for losing all the time ships and need the insurance.If you are a unlucky Pie-Rat, an over risk taking Trader or mining in the frontlines and loose all the time ships, yes let em do some boring stuff so they appriciate the cool Space Simulation they where given.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

link to official forum for npc

http://www.robertsspaceindustries.com/forums/topic/confirmed-npc-ai-able-to-pilot-your-extra-ships/

and part about p52

Chris
    RE: Constellation and P52.
    None of the other “full” ships were ever meant to fit in the Constellation. If Ben said that then he was mistaken as it was never int he design. A bigger capital class ship could fit a pledge ship, but not the Constellation.
    the P52 was meant to be a light maneuverable short range fighter (not much fuel or ammo storage) for space defense against other light maneuverable attackers. A player HAS to pilot it though. It can not be flown as a drone. So it’s either you or a friend. If you fly it, the Constellation can fly on autopilot (and will obey your basic commands) with the turrets in auto mode, or a friend can pilot for you. If I allow ship board NPCs on player ships (not fully decided yet – these will be on bigger capital ships like the carrier) they will maybe have more personality in terms of taking their own initiative but in general will have the drawbacks of AI / NPCs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Take what AllGamer says with a grain of salt. I have read posts of his where he is openly spreading disinformation and lies. Im not sure if he is trolling or confused. Having said that He might be correct this time, im just not sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

For reference, here are some links to that info from Kickstarter:

All Gamers reference: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cig/star-citizen/comments?cursor=1730292#comment-1730292

RE: Constellation and P52. None of the other "full" ships were ever meant to fit in the Constellation. If Ben said that then he was mistaken as it was never int he design. A bigger capital class ship could fit a pledge ship, but not the Constellation.

the P52 was meant to be a light maneuverable short range fighter (not much fuel or ammo storage) for space defense against other light maneuverable attackers. A player HAS to pilot it though. It can not be flown as a drone. So it's either you or a friend. If you fly it, the Constellation can fly on autopilot (and will obey your basic commands) with the turrets in auto mode, or a friend can pilot for you. If I allow ship board NPCs on player ships (not fully decided yet - these will be on bigger capital ships like the carrier) they will maybe have more personality in terms of taking their own initiative but in general will have the drawbacks of AI / NPCs.

About speed: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cig/star-citizen/comments?cursor=1735377#comment-1735377

Firefly - Probably not but it will also depend on loaded weight (cargo, fuel, ammo) and engine / thruster upgrades. All things being equal a Hornet or 300i will be faster than a Constellation or Freelancer - but there are so many variables that will not be an absolute. Hope that makes sense! CR

Castellan Bocephus likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

This was a very old thread, but reading more into it (excuse me if I missed this being mentioned), but I think ships like the Aurora will be able to doc along the side, but I am not sure if they can "carry" them through space like a secured P52

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

This was a very old thread, but reading more into it (excuse me if I missed this being mentioned), but I think ships like the Aurora will be able to doc along the side, but I am not sure if they can "carry" them through space like a secured P52

I think that was a question on 10 for the chairman once. you can dock with it but only when stationary. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now