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 contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

The next Imperium Game Day will be held on February 25th. Please click here for more information on how to join.

Reavern

Imperium Member
  • Content count

    2,841
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    38
  • Feedback

    100%

About Reavern

  • Rank
    Warrior Wordsmith
  • Birthday 09/20/1987

Profile Information

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

Star Citizen Info

  • Pledge
    Space Marshal

Recent Profile Visitors

3,601 profile views
  1. The original concept for the Hurricane was that it was a low-tier dedicated starfighter -- not a Starter ship, but in the same tier as a 300i, Avenger, or Reliant -- that was equipped with 6 x S1 weapon hardpoints, supposedly inspired by WWII fighter planes, like the venerable P-51 Mustang, which was armed with 6 x .50 cal machine guns. The general idea was that the Hurricane would be an inexpensive close-range brawler-type dogfighter, which could conceivably defeat a Hornet with its superior maneuverability and getting close-up and blasting it with its six-guns. The Hurricane will supposedly be a different style of dogfighter than the existing starfighters: Hornet, SH, Sabre, Gladius, etc. However, there are rumours that the Hurricane's design has changed from a hard-hitting agility fighter into a brutish Heavy Fighter -- supposedly the predecessor to the new F8 Lightning heavy fighter. The Hurricane is supposedly an older design, perhaps 100 years old, which embodies the philosophy of "simple but (brutally) effective". If that's the case then it will be even more "tanky" than the Super Hornet. I also think it's going to be more expensive than when it was originally pitched as one of the choices for the 3rd Starter Ship (which the Reliant won). If the Hurricane is a heavy fighter, I'm certain it will be as expensive as a Super Hornet, or more expensive. After the epic Vanguard price controversy, there's no evidence that CIG has radically rethought their price points, especially for combat ships, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Hurricane Heavy Fighter was somewhere between $175 and $250. I don't think I'll buy the Hurricane, because it doesn't sound like my kind of starfighter. I don't like high numbers of small size weapons. I prefer fewer, large size weapons. Perhaps if the Hurricane's loadout has changed to equipping 6 x S2 or S3 weapons, I might consider it.
  2. I believe the OP is confusing a person's RSI account with the number of game packages attributed to an RSI account. The majority of Star Citizen backers have one RSI account and one game package. You can't launch Star Citizen without an RSI account and you can't play the game without a game package. At the moment, you only have one character regardless of how many game packages on your account. At some point, CIG will introduce "character slots" to RSI accounts and players will be given one character slot for each game package they own. Players can choose to make their characters independent of each other, or make one a "Primary Character" and assign the other characters to the PC as NPCs, and have them serve as crew, squadmates, sidekicks, etc. All characters must have a beneficiary chosen by the player so that in the (inevitable) event the player's character dies, the beneficiary will inherit that character's belongings and the player will continue on playing as that new character. If the player has multiple game packages and therefore multiple character slots, and chooses to name one of their secondary characters as the beneficiary of their PC, if and when the PC dies, their belongings will be inherited by the secondary character, who becomes the new PC. The character slot formerly belonging to the deceased PC will be vacated and the player can create a new character to fill that slot. They don't ever lose a character slot. There will always be a character that can inherit the PC's belongings. Even if you had 4 characters, 1 PC and 3 NPCs, all serving aboard your Constellation, and you accidentally quantum jumped into a star and your ship was destroyed and everyone died -- perma-died. Even if you had a daisy chain of beneficiaries: your Primary Character's beneficiary was Character 2, C2's beneficiary was C3, C3's was C4, C4's was the PC, and they ALL died at once... the game would still allow the player to name a new beneficiary to inherit the PC's belongings and the player could fill all 4 character slots with new characters. I don't know of any scenario wherein it's possible for a player's character to die and they can't continue the game. The only scenario I can think of is maybe CIG permanently bans a player, in which case they'd probably lock their RSI account.
  3. It's safe to assume that CIG is going to balance all of the ships between now and release. It may seem like Drake is getting all the love and attention right now, but that's just because CIG finalized the Drake style guide, which has enabled them to finally release the Cat and Herald. Don't forget that the Caterpillar was in concept limbo for ~3 years and it was the last of the Wave 2 ships to be done. The Herald is the smallest of the Wave 3 ships, which is why it's the first flyable Wave 3 ship released. After the Bucc, Dragonfly, and new Cutlass are released, CIG will be (more or less) done with Drake and will focus on a new ship manufacturer. (I think it's going to be Aegis because there are so many Aegis ships and the early Aegis ships don't match the recent ones.) I don't think it's reasonable to claim the redesigned Cutlass is OP'd compared to the Freelancer or Hornet simply based on the fact that it's larger and has more guns. Larger means more massive and less maneuverable, so it will probably handle more like a Lancer. The new Cutlass will have more guns than the Lancer, but they'll be smaller (S3 hardpoints with gimbals, which means S2 guns) and it will have fewer missiles. Even if Pirates arm the new Cutlass with fixed S3s, the Lancer and Constellation can withstand a lot of punishment from fighters armed with S3s, so the new Cutlass isn't going to be OP'd. I think the Lancer and new Cutlass will be evenly matched in combat, so pilot skill will determine the victor, as it should be. And the variant models will differentiate and diversify each respective ships' roles. The Caterpillar isn't going to surpass the Starfarer or Gemini as a fuel tanker, even if the Cat can be equipped with modules for carrying and distributing fuel. And I doubt CIG will even bother creating Fuel modules for the Cat. The Cat is a multi-role ship but that doesn't mean CIG has to make Cat modules for literally every role. In terms of style, I like Drake's industrial and rugged style, but there are plenty of players who like MISC too, so I don't believe that a significant number of Freelancer and Starfarer owners are going to melt their MISC ships for Drakes.
  4. That sounds similar to the False Colors skin, which was shown when the Cutlass concept was revealed during the Kickstarter campaign: I imagine the skin is slightly different now, but if it's red and has something similar to a Jolly Roger then it's probably the False Colors skin.
  5. Consider using the Pirate skin as camouflage so you infiltrate Cathcart or Pyro to hunt down bounties. I imagine that if you tried venturing to Pirate Havens with your Advocacy flag flying you'd get attacked by every player and NPC there. Also, is the Pirate skin a legit NEW skin? Because I remember 1-2 years ago, CIG released the "UEE Distinguished Service" and "Dread Pirate" skins in the Store, and they were simply the Military Skin and Blackbeard Pirate skins, which dated back to the Kickstarter campaign. Is this "new" Pirate skin the False Colors Pirate skin?
  6. I don't believe the Vanguard's current depiction in AC is an accurate representation of what it will be in finished game. Its guns are too weak and it isn't nearly as tough as advertised. When it was first flyable, the Warden's shields weren't working correctly and were much weaker than they were supposed to be. Even now, I don't think the Warden's two shield gens work as intended, which was a dual layer redundant shields; if the primary shield is worn down to 0%, the secondary shield would be at full strength and would absorb damage while the primary recharges to full strength. But the Warden doesn't have a secondary shield in AC. Also, the Warden's hull isn't as durable as advertised either, because in the description it claims that Vanguards can make it back to base with one engine and half their hulls exposed to space. The current Warden doesn't seem much tougher than a Super Hornet, which is wrong. I'm fairly certain that CIG will change the characteristics of the Vanguard later -- probably when Squadron 42 is released.
  7. It seems you already understand the pros and cons of the two bombers. The Tali will either need gunners to operate its turrets or a fighter escort to protect it from enemy interceptors. If you try to solo a Tali, the pilot cannot operate any of the gun turrets, so you can't defend yourself -- unless you sacrifice torpedo capacity to equip anti-fighter missiles. Whereas if you solo a Harbinger, the pilot can operate the quad nose guns, gatling gun, and missiles, and the bomber should be okay in a dogfight. So if you prefer to solo, the Harbinger is the better choice of bomber for you. The Tali will be better suited for "fleet actions" wherein it will be used to attack big, slow-moving targets, like an enemy cap ship or space installation. In a fleet action, there should be plenty of players available to crew the Tali and operate its turrets. So if you want to participate in fleet actions, the Tali is well suited for that. (The Harbinger is too.) Something to consider regarding the Tali is that CIG has been redesigning and updating most of the early ships. If I recall correctly, the Tali was hangar ready and flyable around the same time as the Constellation, and the Constellation has been redesigned and updated, and all its varient models are undergoing updates. It's possible the Tali will be redesigned and updated sometime in 2017. If and when that happens, CIG might redesign the Tali's torpedo bays and increase its torpedo capacity. It never made sense to me why the front torpedo bay held 4 torpedoes and the aft torpedo bay held 2. The front torpedo bay's rotary torpedo holder seems wasted by only holding a single torpedo. And it seems inefficient that the Tali can launch up to 4 torpedoes for its first volley, but only 2 for its second, then it's done. The design doesn't seem logical to me. If CIG does redesign the Tali, I think they'll address that flaw. So the Tali might end up carrying a lot more torpedoes than the Harbinger. And if it does, the price will probably increase, so it might be premature to CCU to a Harbinger. If that happens, it would be smarter to sell your Retaliator for a tidy profit, buy a less expensive ship (ideally a concept ship with LTI), then CCU that to the Harbinger.
  8. Yes, my prediction is that the Caterpillar's Module Sale will rival the Endeavour's Concept Sale, which was crazy. The Cat has already increased in price by $70 and it might increase again when the modules are released. It's the price of the Cat's modules that concerns me, because if the modules are comparable to the Endeavour and Retaliator modules, the cheapest module will be $25 and the most expensive could be $125. The Retaliator only had 2 module slots and the Endeavour had 3. The Cat has 4! Considering that the Tali's cargo and living quarters modules cost $25 each and they're much smaller, and the Cat comes equipped with 4 cargo modules, I wouldn't be surprised if the cheapest Cat module was $50. If there are Ship Weapon Modules, it's probably a safe bet those will be the most expensive, probably $125+ each. So 4 Weapon modules could cost $500, which would mean a "Combat Cat" could cost $795 -- more expensive than a Polaris Corvette! I can only imagine what a Caterpillar Module "Master Pack" could cost -- probably thousands! I really like the Caterpillar and I'm glad I bought it early when it was only $225 with LTI. However, the prospect of paying more than twice the cost of the ship for modules is daunting. And considering I already own multiple ships that specialize in the roles that the Cat can perform (with the applicable modules), I might not need the Cat after all. I'll have to wait for the Caterpillar Modules Sale before I make that decision.
  9. Twin S4 cannons in the turrets aren't bad, but if you look at the pic of the bow turret from the Caterpillar ship brochure, the guns look really small and feeble IMO. It's difficult to even see them because they blend in and the gun barrels don't even extend beyond the manned turret. Judging by the look and size of the Cat's turrets, I think they could easily equip the Behring M7A Size5 laser cannon. It would be great if the Cat's turrets could mount larger guns, but Drake Interplanetary chose to equip it with Size 4s to downplay its offensive capabilities and reform its notoriety as a Pirate Transport. It's also strange that a Starfarer outguns the Caterpillar considering that the Cat is now considered the "evil twin" of the Starfarer. As for the Command Module, unfortunately, there are no specs for the CM ATM -- all the specs seem to be for the primary hull. I've seen in test flight videos that the Cat's CM has two fixed-forward laser cannons, presumably Behrings, like the turret guns. So we know that the Cat's CM is armed. That's about all we know.
  10. That's true. I already owned a Gladius, Gladiator, Super Hornet, Sabre, Gemini, Warden, and Retaliator; they all had LTI and I bought them when they were the cheapest. Their prices added together was $1310. Subtracted from $2500, the price of the Idris-P equates to $1190, which is the least expensive the Idris-P has ever been. (During the June 2013 Livestream event it cost $1250. During the 2016 Anniversay Sale, the warbond cash-only price was $1300, and the store credit price was $1500.) If other backers bought those ships later, after the prices increased and without LTI, their melt value would be even higher and exchanging them for LTI would be invaluable. So the Armada Pack is a great deal!
  11. I think CIG wants us to think that the "escape coffin" was the reason the Vanguard was overpriced. It's my understanding that the Redeemer is a gunship first, dropship second. The Redeemer is already more expensive than the Hoplite, carries the same number of marines: 6, and has more guns. So yes, it could be considered the next tier up from a Hoplite in terms of troop transport. However, the Redeemer is currently undergoing a redesign and we don't know what direction it's going to take. When it was originally designed, Star Citizen didn't have a gunship or a dropship. Now SC has several dropships, and only one gunship. It's possible that CIG could redesign it to enhance its gunship aspects and drop its troop transport capabilities. I think the Hoplite is simply CIG's pragmatic solution to the problem of needing a dropship for Squadron 42 after they realized the Redeemer wasn't suitable. I imagine it was relatively easy for CIG to design a new troop transport module for the Vanguard, since it was designed to be modular. Supposedly CIG also widened the aft ramp door so it could deploy marines faster. It's understandable that CIG has made the Hoplite available to purchase, but it doesn't interest me personally. I think the redesigned Cutlass will do the same job just as well for half the price.
  12. It's a welcome surprise that the Hoplite costs less than the Warden base model. There were a lot of rumours it would cost the same as a Harbinger, or even more, which would've been outrageous. But after the Prowler Concept Sale, I think everyone assumed the worst that CIG was going to gouge us for as much money as possible. It's a relief they gave us a break this time. (Although it reinforces the criticism that the Prowler is so over-priced because of the Alien Mark-up.) I think I might buy a Hoplite with store credit since there's no "Warbond" cash discount. Owning a Hoplite means that I'll have the option of melting my over-priced Prowler and still have a dedicated dropship and boarding craft with LTI. Also, the Hoplite is a long-range troop transport, whereas the Prowler is short-range. A lot to think about.
  13. I finally did it! I bought an Idris-P Frigate as part of the Armada Pack from the Holiday 2016 sale. I already owned all of the other ships in the pack, so I melted them, as well as the Polaris Corvette I bought a couple of months back. With all the store credit I had accumulated, I only ended up paying $155 USD for the Armada Pack. So I basically traded in a Polaris and upgraded to an Idris for (less than) the price of a Super Hornet. That's a helluva deal! I look forward to commanding my Idris Frigate sometime in 2017!
  14. Now that the Prowler has had its Concept Sale and the Caterpillar redesign is due to be released next, I really hope that CIG will get to work on the Banu Merchantman. I believe it's the last Wave 2 ship left, so it's kinda long overdue for some love. I already had a BMM with LTI, but when the Exotics went on sale I bought a couple of BMM Anniversaries because they're still $250 and I'm certain the price is going to jump when the BMM has its Hangar/Flight-ready Sale. It think the price is going to be at least $350. Considering that the pics of the BMM have only been concept art so far and the way that many multi-crew ships grew in the design and productuion phases, I think it's a safe bet that the BMM will be significantly larger than 100 metres. Assuming that CIG intends to maintain the external design of the BMM I believe it will be upsized to at least 150 metres in length in order to carry 5000 SCUs of cargo internally. As much as I love the BMM's concept design, its internal layout isn't exactly efficient for a mercantile ship and lacks many rooms and amenities that ended up in the Starfarer's design. I think the BMM will have a much more elaborate internal layout than the concepts, with more than 4 decks and plenty of rooms and compartments. CIG has said that the BMM will have a "conference room" for negotiating deals and the ship will function as a mobile store. I don't think CIG intends BMM owners to sell items out of the cargo bay. I think there's going to be a Store accessible via the forward boarding ramp, which is where customers will come aboard to shop. Then the sold items will be offloaded from the aft cargo ramp and carted away by the customer. I believe that the stylized alien shape of the external hull will ensure that the BMM has plenty of internal compartments that could be used to hide cargo for smuggling -- or just additional cargo space. I think the BMM is going to be very spacious and one of the best multi-crew ships to own, especially compared to the other cargo haulers that seem more spartan in design and style. I'm really looking forward to seeing the Banu Merchantman sometime next year!
  15. That was my idea for taking down an Idris Frigate or Bengal Carrier: Just ram a Caterpillar into bridge's glass canopy and unload dozens of marines directly onto the bridge and take control of the ship. EZ. Unfortunately, CR wrote/said something, I think in a 10FtC video more than 2 years ago, that it wouldn't be possible. I don't recall exactly what he said and I can't link the source, but I remember him saying something like there would be practical limits to the ship's damage modeling. Ships wouldn't be fully destructible, like the environments in the game Red Faction. We've seen the video of a Gladius being carved into pieces by a gatling gun and it looks amazing. But it's a combination of large particle effects and dividing the ship models into "breakaway chunks". There are limits on how many ways the ships can be broken and destroyed. It would be took much work to model a large hull breach in every possible location of a capital ship model. At most there might be a few "weak points" that could be targeted, and both the attackers and defenders would know where they were. So it wouldn't be much better than boarders entering via a docking port hatch; the defenders could exploit it as a bottleneck to gun down boarders as they attempted to enter the ship. That means that you can't crash a ship like the Caterpillar into a cap ship like the Bengal and it would create a perfectly shaped hull breach that would enable the ship to offload boarders. What would happen is the Caterpillar would shatter and blow up and kill everyone on board, just like what happens now if you botch a ship landing. It's a clever idea and it would be great if it was possible, but based on CR's statements it unfortunately won't be possible -- unless CR and CIG has changed their minds.