Jump to content


Imperium Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Feedback


Reavern last won the day on September 15

Reavern had the most liked content!

About Reavern

  • Rank
    Warrior Wordsmith
  • Birthday 09/20/1987

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Writing, video games, and watching movies.

Recent Profile Visitors

6,316 profile views
  1. Reavern

    RSI Mantis

    The Hammerhead isn't invincible, it just means you have to choose the right ship for Pirate Swarm. It's really about the right combination of ships and teamwork, which should be what Pirate Swarm Co-op is all about. If a group of players completed Pirate Swarm together and unlocked the Mantis, ideally the same group would fly the Mantis together in the PU. I wouldn't be surprised if the Mantis ends up encouraging Org Play more than any ship so far. It remains to be seen if it will be a net positive or negative change for the PU. Even if they used the Mantis for griefing, I'm in favour of team-centric gameplay. And I prefer the idea of players needing to earn the right to purchase the Mantis rather than anyone being able to buy it. Regardless, I know that CIG isn't going to make it a competition for the Mantis. The Esperia Glaive was a rare prize, so a competition to unlock it made sense. Also, the Glaive couldn't be considered P2W because it is not competitive in AC; on the contrary, flying a Glaive (or a Scythe) is a severe handicap. Whereas the Mantis is unsuitable as a prize ship because it features a long-awaited game mechanic, which a lot of players desperately want. Locking the Mantis behind a skill wall wouldn't be popular in the SC community. I'm certain that CIG wants to sell as many Mantises as possible, so (ironically) the only barrier for entry will be the price point.
  2. Reavern

    RSI Mantis

    Based on the revealed pic, the Mantis is Cutlass-sized, so $150 is possible -- because if RSI produced a Cutlass-close, it would probably be priced $150 because of RSI's higher standards. However, I think the QJ Inhibitor will drive the price up significantly, like +$100. That's why I predicted $250. I agree that the Warlock is the closest analog to the Mantis, and it's only $25 more than the Avenger Stalker. However, the EMP isn't that effective because of its limited range and charge time. Whereas the Mantis' QJ inhibitor field has a much larger area of effect and ships (probably) won't have any forewarning that they're jumping into a QJ snare until it happens. I think the Mantis is going to be more effective in its role than the Warlock, so its price will be inflated significantly. My genuine concern is that the PU will become lousy with Mantises. I hope that CIG makes the Mantis concept sale into an Arena Commander event, similar to what they did with the Esperia Glaive. Players should have to complete a Pirate Swarm match to unlock the Mantis in the Pledge Store, then they can buy it. And it should be restricted to one Mantis per account, so whales can't buy 10 Mantises for their Pirate Org. I think that's the best way to make the Mantis rare but also fair, because they'd have to be earned through playing the game.
  3. Reavern

    RSI Mantis

    I’m pleased that the “Quantum Snare/Inhibitor” device requires a dedicated ship, as opposed to a pylon-mounted weapon or device that virtually any ship can equip. Perhaps CIG will introduce anti-QJ weapons in the future, similar to the idea of EMP torpedoes or distortion missiles. However, in terms of a device that projects a sustained QJ inhibitor field across an area several kilometres in diametre, which pulls ships out of a quantum jump, I think it should require a dedicated ship, similar to the Avenger Warlock or Sabre Raven. If anything, I wish the Mantis was larger, like at least the size of a Constellation. I suspect that the Mantis will be the smallest ship capable of equipping a QJ Inhibitor, however, there will be larger ships that can equip it. For example, perhaps there could be a variant of the Polaris corvette that replaces its hangar bay with a more powerful QJ Inhibitor that has a wider area of effect than the Mantis. My concern regarding the Mantis is what price CIG will be selling it for, because if they price it high — which I suspect they will — then it will be P2W and cater to rich douchebags who love to grief in the PU. I predict that the minimum price CIG will sell it for is $250 warbond; the same price as the Eclipse stealth bomber. But I wouldn’t be surprised if CIG prices it around $375 warbond, like the Esperia Prowler, to ensure artificial rarity because it’s so expensive. I suspect we’ll find out the Mantis’ price point tomorrow.
  4. So many bombers, but nothing to bomb. I wish CIG would add some new missions to the PU with hostile NPC large ships, so players could finally use our bombers for something (other than griefing). There are plenty of large ships in the PU now and tons of possibilities. There could be mission to track down a hijacked Starfarer and the player could blow it up with torpedoes. Or a mission tracking down pirates and you find them flying a Pirate Caterpillar. And then there's the Vanduul. What about a multi-part mission involving S&D-ing Vanduul raiders that culminates in the appearance of a small Vanduul cap ship, which can only be destroyed using torpedoes. If there were things to bomb in the PU, I'm certain there'd be much greater demand for the Tali rework.
  5. That pic of the Pioneer is awesome... but even if the Pioneer's exterior work is done -- or at least rendered in-game -- we know from past ships that the interiors are the real time sinks. The Pioneer's interior, with its outpost fabrication plant, is probably the most complicated of any known ship. How long have we been waiting for the Idris? 6+ years! The Pioneer is nearly the same size as the Idris and its concept sale was less than 2 years ago. Knowing CR, he might have CIG animating the complete fabrication of every type of outpost module. Even when the Pioneer's ship dev process is completed, then there's the game mechanics of placing the outpost mods on the surface of planets and getting them to work together. It would be pointless to make the Pioneer flyable in the PU until player-built and owned Outposts are in-game. The fact that neither the Pioneer nor Outposts are on the current Dev Roadmap means they're at least 1 year away, so I won't be holding my breath until I can use my Pioneer in the PU.
  6. Has CR or CIG said that the Tali will be flyable in SQ42? Because I know that other ships, like the Vanguard (specifically the Hoplite), were prioritized because they would be featured in the 1st Episode of SQ42. I didn't think the Tali would be featured in SQ42 because, in the lore, it's an older bomber design that's being phased out. It seems like an unlikely choice as a ship that the player will fly. I can understand the Gladiator, Harbinger, and/or Eclipse bombers being flyable in SQ42, because they only require 1-2 crew to fly. Whereas the Tali requires 6+ crew; I'm uncertain what role the player would be assigned on a ship like that. So I'm interested to know if CIG has said the Tali needs to be reworked and finalized before SQ42 is release. Or is that just speculation? I 100% agree that bombers aren't in a good state currently. They have no real purpose, except for attacking other player's large ships. So they're basically used by griefers. If the PU had missions that involved taking out large ships belonging to Pirates or Vanduul, then bombers would have a legitimate way to earn UECs and they'd be more fun fly. It would be great if CIG created a "Bombing Run" game mode in Arena Commander; it would start with target practice, then a flight obstacle course, and finally battle sims to destroy progressively larger ships. Since it's AC, the bombs and torpedoes would be free, so players could practice bombing runs as much as they wanted. I'd also like to see the missile/bomb/torpedo game mechanics improved and made more sophisticated. Clicking once to lock-on and click-holding to launch missiles is OK for fighters, but bombers should have more advanced controls. The more advanced the bomber, the more sophisticated the controls would be. So the Gladiator would only have slightly more advanced controls than a fighter, whereas the Retaliator would have extremely advanced controls, which would justify the bombardier role. This would mean that using bombers would actually require skill and it would be less appealing to griefers. I hope that CIG does improve bomber game mechanics when they finally get around to reworking the Tali.
  7. Increasing the Tali's torpedo capacity was precisely what I said. The idea that the Tali's design is done is ludicrous. All of the Original Dozen ships have changed, some of them multiple times. Therefore, the assumption that a ship that was Hangar Ready in 2014 won't ever be changed is laughable. The Tali isn't on the roadmap for a rework because CIG doesn't know what to do with it. There's currently no need for a heavy bomber in the PU and virtually no one flies the Tali, so it's low priority for a rework. When CIG introduces new gameplay with a clearly defined role for a heavy bomber -- or bombers in general -- then they'll get around to reworking the Tali. It John's dismissive attitude regarding reworking the Tali doesn't bode well because it presumably means there's nothing in the Development Road Map related to bombers, like compelling Capital Ship gameplay. BTW, whatever happened to Idris Battle mode?
  8. I predicted that CIG would rework the Tali and I'm pleased that they've finally announced they're doing it. I sincerely hope they do a complete inside-&-out rework of the Tali, because it looks very dated compared to the newer ships. The Tali has been virtually forgotten about, which is a shame, because it's an awesome ship. Arguably more important than reworking the Tali's interior and exterior design is that the heavy bomber needs to be re-balanced with the Eclipse and Harbinger. This is the perfect opportunity to re-balance the Tali's weapons, which wasn't possible with the existing design. The Tali's torpedo capacity should be doubled to 12 and it should be able to drop bombs on planets, similar to the Hercules. (It seems CIG is pushing planetary combat with vehicles, land claims, and outpost building, so if the Tali could drop bombs it would serve a viable purpose.) The Tali's gun turrets should be up-sized to at least dual S3, and the pilot needs to given some guns; whether it's remote control of the forward turret, or a couple of new gimballed S4's added to the nose, the pilot needs to be able to do something other than just fly. All that said, I know it's going to be a long time before we'll be able to fly the reworked Tali.
  9. Reavern

    Drake Corsair

    I suppose that's possible, but wouldn't CIG have advertised that feature? There's no mention of the Corsair's ability to navigate and chart jump points, so presumably, it's not more capable of that role than any other ship. CIG's explanation for the tri-wings is that they supposedly help with improved agility and stability in abnormal atmospheric environments -- which is ambiguous at best. I mean, how does having two diagonal winds help and in what specific atmospheric conditions? To the best of my knowledge, any aircraft that relies on wings for lift has horizontal wings, without exception. There are no diagonal winged aircraft. (There are aircraft with canted rudders/horizontal stabilizers, like the F-117, F-22 Raptor, and Predator drones, but those are control surfaces, not lifting surfaces, and the reason they're diagonal is to decrease their radar cross-section, not for the sake of agility or stability.) So CIG's explanation for the Corsair's tri-wings seems like BS. It's simply to make the design asymmetrical, and it's not even done in a "cool" way. It just looks strange and unnecessary. If I designed a Pirate Raider with an asymmetrical design, I'd call it the Hydra. I'd make it a catamaran-style ship adjoined at the rear half, sharing the same power plant, engineering section, and cargo hold. The front half of the Hydra would be split into two parallel fuselages, two noses, and two cockpits, although they wouldn't be identical -- hence the asymmetric design. The main fuselage would be larger to accommodate the crew quarters and amenities and would have manned gun turrets. The secondary fuselage would be smaller and have gimballed weapons or remote turrets. The unique feature of this ship would be that one (or possibly both) of the fuselages could detach from the "powerdrive" section and operate as an independent craft (or lifeboat). In combat, the Raidcraft could serve as a parasite fighter, similar to a P-52 or P-72 for the Constellation. It would be considerably larger than those snubfighters and carry 4-6 passengers, because it would also function as a boarding craft or dropship. The idea is that the Hydra could execute a fly-by on an unsuspecting cargo hauler, deploy the Raidcraft, and fly away so that it didn't appear hostile. The Raidcraft would stealthily approach the target ship and latch on to it with electromagnets and/or robotic claws. The Raidcraft would have a docking port on its ventral side so that it could either dock at a docking hatch or slice a hole into the hull (like the Cutlass was originally supposed to do! 😡) and deploy the boarding team onto the ship. Ideally, the Hydra would be a modular and expandable design -- or possibly a series of ships of different sizes, like the MISC Hull series. The base model Hydra would have a single fuselage that could separate from the powerdrive section. The "standard" Hydra model would have two fuselages. And there'd be larger models with 3 and 4 detachable Raidcraft, possibly more. This would ensure the asymmetrical design had a logical purpose -- instead of just "the rule of cool" (arguably).
  10. Reavern

    Drake Corsair

    In addition to the co-pilot/gunner seat's obstructed forward visibility because of the ceiling and MFD, this pic shows that it has no side visibility! That tiny window at the bottom is useless -- I think it's cosmetic more than anything -- because the co-pilot/gunner sits too far back and eye-level would be looking at solid hull. That could be the most restricted view of any ship in SC. That gunner's seat must rely on the MFDs to track targets because the holographic HUD wouldn't work -- or, it would sorta work. You'd just be aiming at the target reticule and trying the align the lead indicator to hit it, but you wouldn't be able to see the ship unless it's directly ahead. In a dogfight versus starfighters, the Corsair will get owned. But I suppose as a pirate raider, the Corsair could keep slower cargo haulers and utility ships in its front sights and pound away with its gimballed S4s. It seems strange that CIG is marketing the Corsair as an "aggressive exploration" ship instead of a legitimate alternative to the Freelancer DUR or Constellation Aquila. The brochure mentions that the Corsair has "state-of-the-art sensor suites" but they aren't overtly indicated in the pics or schematics. The DUR and Aquila's sensors are easy to find, and the Aquila even swaps out one of its gun turrets for a manned sensor array. The 315p has (or had) a tractor beam projector on the nose gimbal. The Terrapin is basically a sensor suite attached to an armored shell. Whereas the Corsair is simply loaded for bear. There's no mention of what type of "exploration" it's intended for: scanning for jump points, navigating jump routes, system surveying, planetary surveying? Who knows!? 🤨 I suppose that CIG's intention is to show the Corsair is a medium-size Raider, not an exploration ship at all. However, usually they do it in a more subtle, darkly humorous, tongue-in-cheek kinda way, which strongly implies what's really going on with Drake ships without actually saying it. But it's like CIG isn't even trying with the Corsair. They're just dropping the Corsair and saying "it is what it is." I'm not biting on this one. I just doesn't seem to be up to CIG's standards. The asymmetrical design doesn't bother me -- I've often said I disliked CIG's pension for symmetrical ships -- but the folding tri-wings just don't make sense to me. If a ship has a third wing, logically it should be perpendicular to the other two so that its maneuvering thrusters provide extra turning power for a different axis. For example, the horizontal wings should have maneuvering thrusters for yaw and roll, but if the third wing swung out vertically, it could provide pitch and roll. But having two diagonal wings on the port side doesn't seem like it'll provide superior agility or stability. The Corsair seems to follow the sci-fi trope that "good guy" ships are stylish and symmetrical, whereas "bad guy" ships are menacingly ugly and asymmetrical. And since the Corsair is (not) a "pirate ship" it needs to look kinda slapped together, like it lost its port wing in combat, and the pirates grafted a pair of mismatched wings onto it. I don't like it. This is an easy pass for me.
  11. Reavern

    Drake Corsair

    That pic makes a good point about the Corsair's visibility. It seems ridiculous that CIG isn't aware of these design flaws -- or they are, but they don't seem to care. Perhaps CIG believes that restricted visibility is a realistic problem for many aircraft in the present day and especially historically, and they use it for ship balance. For example, Drake ships are unofficial Pirate/Criminal ships and primarily used in combat, but they all seem to suffer from cockpit visibility problems. Perhaps it's intentional to give the cargo haulers they prey on a fighting chance. Whereas "good guy" starfighters, like the Hornet, Sabre, and Gladius, have excellent visibility and therefore have an advantage over Drake combat ships. Also, the moveable co-pilot chair on Drake ships is ridiculously over-engineered. Considering how inexpensive Drake ships are, it's unbelievable they have such an elaborate and presumably expensive hydraulic articulating/telescoping lifting mechanism for the co-pilot seat, just so the pilot and co-pilot can get in and out of their seats without interfering with each other. Considering the size of the Corsair, I don't understand why it doesn't have side-by-side pilot/co-pilot seats, like the Freelancer. A medium-size ship should have a roomy cockpit, not narrow cockpit, like the Cutlass. I would rather the Corsair have a chin-mounted manned gun turret in place of the underslung co-pilot seat, similar to the Ghost from Star Wars Rebels. A gunner's station doesn't need all of the MFDs that a co-pilot has, so the gunner's view would be less obstructed. It would be even better if it was a bubble canopy that extended from the nose for improved visibility. Instead, the Corsair has gun turrets on the sides of its neck, which don't seem like ideal positions. Perhaps those gun turrets can fire forward, but if a frontal target strays slightly to the right or left, one of the turrets won't be able to shoot at it. Whereas a chin turret would have a wide frontal arc and would only require a single gunner -- and might even be controllable by the pilot. It really seems like CIG gave the Corsair deliberate design flaws so it wouldn't be over-powered for its price point. EDIT: So I feel kinda dumb... 😣 I originally wrote my post on my phone so I didn't have all the pics of the Corsair readily available. I was replying to VoA's pic of the Corsair's limited cockpit visibility, and relying on my memory of where the Corsair's weapons were positioned. I remembered the side turrets but forgot about the gimballed weapons around the ship's nose. Regardless, I'd prefer a manned bubble turret on the ship's "chin" over the gimballed weapons and the two side gun turrets. I really don't think those side turrets will be very useful, and they're crew intensive. Even if there ended up being fewer guns overall, I think a bubble turret's unmatched visibility and forward firing arcs would be preferable.
  12. Reavern

    Drake Corsair

    The Corsair seems to be a significant upgrade from a Freelancer DUR and is a contender as a budget Aquila, however, it's not even in the same league as a Carrack -- nor should it be. The problem I have with the Corsair is that it seems to be marketed as a legit Exploration ship, whereas typically Drake ships give a wink and a nod to more nefarious purposes. Yes, the Corsair is heavily armed, which strongly suggests that it can be used in a combat role, but having detected any hints from CIG what it's really for. Is the Corsair supposed to be a Pirate Leader's ship? For example, if there's a small-to-medium size Pirate Org of ~30 players, with more than a dozen starfighters (Buccaneers), a few combat-transports (Cutlasses), and a loot hauler (Caterpillar); is the Corsair the pirate command ship? A Pirate Org of that size probably couldn't afford a Kraken or other cap ship, but they'd need a medium-size ship (or large) for their leader to oversee a raid op while his/her crew operates the ship. However, there's no mention of the Corsair featuring sophisticated sensors or comms, or even a tactical map station, which would be useful for combat coordination. So it doesn't seem like the Corsair is a viable command ship. The Corsair seems like it has formidable offensive and defensive capabilities, but based on my experiences flying the Connie in combat, medium and larger size ships are easily overwhelmed by starfighters, especially when outnumbered (and gun turret improvements still haven't been implemented by CIG). Therefore, I don't think the Corsair will be effective as a solo pirate ship, unless it's preying a solo transport, like a Freelancer or Starfarer. However, if the target has fighter escorts -- or first-responders arrived -- the Corsair probably won't be successful. So I don't understand the true purpose of the Corsair. It just seems like a better DUR or cheaper Aquila but doesn't offer anything game-changing. (At least the Argo SRV fulfilled a new role as a space towtruck/tugboat.)
  13. I bought the Anvil Arrow and Aopoa San'Tok fighters, as well as CCU's for my LTI token ships. As well as CCU's for several other ships, like a Warlock-to-Sentinel CCU and a Terrapin-to-Mercury CCU. I acquired a Sabre Raven during the summer, which rendered my Warlock package unnecessary. The 2018 Anniversary Sale was the first time since then that the Sentinel was available to purchase, so I finally got the CCU. The San'Tok isn't flyable yet, but I think I'll prefer it over the Khartu-al. Agility is important in dogfighting, but the Khartu-al just doesn't have the firepower to effectively compete versus medium fighters or larger ships. I think the San'Tok will have the firepower I want, so I can't wait to fly it!
  14. We all want CIG to release Squadron 42 and Star Citizen ASAP, but I don't think the thing holding back SC/SQ42 is that ships are unfinished or being reworked. I believe the complex game mechanics (like object container streaming) are the blockers because what CIG is attempting things that have never been done before -- which was why many so-called industry experts (and haters) have alleged that Star Citizen is "impossible". It takes time for CIG to figure out these technical hurdles, and in the meantime, they have countless artists producing ships, characters, weapons, environmental objects, and everything else that is necessary to bring the Persistent Universe to life, as well as complete the Squadron 42 campaign. The technical aspects of Star Citizen (and SQ42) aren't finished yet, which is why CIG is reworking existing ships while also developing new ones. In a way, it's busy work -- but also necessary. The ships being reworked are the originals, which are also multi-role ships. Multi-role ships are essential for Star Citizen. It's no coincidence that newer ships are more specialized and lack numerous variant models. New players are more likely to choose the original multi-role ships until they figure out what they want to do in the game, then they'll upgrade to a specialty role ship. But if the original ships look like crap compared to the newer ships, new players will be turned off and won't buy SC/SQ42. That's why it's essential for CIG to rework the older ships to bring them up-to-date. It may seem ridiculous to spend time and resources reworking starter ships like the Aurora or Mustang because many backers have pledged for higher-tier ships and will skip the starters. But new (mainstream) players who buy SQ42 and/or SC at retail will have to start with an Aurora or Mustang, and if those ships don't impress, those players will lose interest long before they can afford a Hornet or Constellation or Idris. The Retaliator is one of the original 12 ships and it was Hangar Ready back in March 2015. That's nearly 4 years ago! The Aegis Dynamics design guide hadn't even been established at the time, which is why the Tali looks so different compared to newer Aegis ships. That's why CIG did a cosmetic pass on the Retaliator's exterior, so it doesn't look so outdated. It's certainly an improvement, but it doesn't solve the fundamental flaws with the Tali's design, which are why players stopped flying it. The last time I checked, the Tali can't even carry cargo because the cargo modules haven't been implemented on the Tali. Only the heavy bomber model of the Tali is flyable, which has very limited usefulness in the PU. At the very least, CIG needs to work on the Tali to implement the Cargo, Living, and Dropship modules that were sold 3+ years ago. I believe that the reason CIG hasn't implemented those modules yet is that they plan a major rework for the Tali, so it's pointless to build modules for a ship that is about to change. CIG needs to rework the ship, then create the modules that fit into the updated ship. We can disagree whether CIG should be reworking the older ships or not, but I'm certain it's just a matter of time before the Tali is reworked.
  15. CIG will rework all of the ships, eventually. You have to remember that CIG wants mainstream gamers to buy Squadron 42 and Star Citizen, not just the existing backers. To appeal to new customers -- and counteract the dubious reputation that SC has because of its crowdfunding model and long development time -- CIG has to demonstrate that SC/SQ42 are AAA games, and the best way to do that is with amazing graphics. Like it or not, the graphics are what sell games to uninformed gamers, a.k.a. mainstream gamers. If a new game looks like garbage, gamers won't give it a chance. They'd rather buy buggy, unfinished games, like Battlefield V and Fallout 76, from big evil publishers that spend hundreds of millions of dollars on game trailers and ads that make the game look spectacular and fun to play. CIG doesn't have that kind of money to waste on ads. And CIG can't control people's perception and biases against Star Citizen. But they can make the game's graphics look incredible. To accomplish that, CIG needs to update all of the ships to their current standards, which is why the oldest ships, like the Origin 300 series, Freelancer, and Constellation are all being updated, including their variant models. The Retaliator was one of the original 12 ships from the Kickstarter campaign, but it's been virtually forgotten about because of complications with multi-crew ships, the ineffectiveness of manned turrets, and lack of need for a heavy bomber. CIG has been working on all of those game mechanics, but sadly none of them have been implemented yet. It's only a matter of time. Once those game mechanics are functioning properly, the Tali will be relevant again and I'm certain that CIG will rework the whole ship. Considering how far off Star Citizen's release seems, it's entirely possible they'll rework the ships that have already been reworked, at least one more time.
  • Create New...