Jump to content

Reavern

Imperium Member
  • Content Count

    3,171
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    52
  • Feedback

    100%

Reavern last won the day on March 31

Reavern had the most liked content!

About Reavern

  • Rank
    Warrior Wordsmith
  • Birthday 09/20/1987

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

5,993 profile views
  1. 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).
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.)
  5. 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!
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. I figured that the Tali would receive an update eventually and its turrets would be buffed. However, I don't think CIG is done with the Tali. This is just an update pass to try to make the Tali relevant again. I'm certain that CIG plans a major rework for the Tali to fix its poorly designed interior, and hopefully double its torpedo capacity so that it's more distinctive from the other bombers. The Tali's size and crew requirements just don't justify it carrying 6 S9 torpedoes compared to the Eclipse stealth bomber's 3 S9 torpedo capacity. It'll be much easier to find 2 Eclipse owners than 1 Tali owner with 6 friends to crew it. However, if the Tali's torpedo capacity was doubled to 12, then it's 4 Eclipse owners compared to 7 players. And when you consider that the Tali can launch up to 4 torpedoes per volley whereas the Eclipse can launch only 1 torpedo at a time, it's virtually a 1:1 comparison to the Eclipse. Then it becomes a debate whether stealth is comparable to the protection of 5 manned turrets. I think the problem with the Eclipse is that after its first strike with a single torpedo, it's given away its presence. If the target ship has fighter escorts, they'll be hunting for it, and the Eclipse will have difficulty launching the second and third torpedoes. Whereas the Tali doesn't rely on stealth; it relies on its gunners for protection and its hull and shields are a lot tougher than the Eclipse's, so it can take hits and continue launching torpedoes. Anyway, I'm pleased that CIG has given the Tali some love after they seemingly forgot about it for 2+ years. But I sincerely hope they have bigger plans for the Tali than just a cosmetic pass. I think a major factor is whether the Tali will be in Squadron 42 or not? If it is in SQ42, CIG will have to update it before the SP game is released. But an update to the Tali isn't even on the Roadmap, so I don't think it'll be flyable in the SQ42 campaign -- at least not the first episode. Regardless, I'm looking forward to the Tali being reworked properly and taking its place among the best medium-size ships.
  9. Reavern

    Aegis Idris Frigate

    I don't know the answer to that, but my gut tells me NO: the Idris-K Aftermarket upgrade kit is not a good value for $$$ to UEC. It could very well be the lowest bang-for-your-buck item in SC, considering that you could buy a medium to large ship for $300. A $300 ship can help you earn UECs in-game. If any, the Idris-K kit will cost you UECs because of the anti-ship missiles. But on the flip-side, the S10 Beam Cannon costs a lot less to use than the Idris-M's Rail Gun because its slugs cost UECs, whereas the Beam Cannon only needs power to operate. Regardless, buying the Idris-K kit isn't about a UEC investment. It's about upgrading our Idris-P frigates to make them more effective in combat.
  10. Reavern

    Aegis Idris Frigate

    Ok, good to know. Although, the Aftermarket Kit having 72-month insurance instead of LTI is needlessly confusing considering that ALL Idris frigates have LTI (because they've always been priced $1000+). This Aftermarket upgrade kit seems similar to the BUKs for the Vanguard, which originally had LTI for their concept sale and later had limited insurance. I don't understand why the Idris-K kit wouldn't have LTI (at least for the warbond version) now, but limited insurance if they're sold again later. Whatever. All that matters is that I succeeded in getting one of the Idris-K Aftermarket Kits this time, so I'm happy!
  11. Reavern

    Aegis Idris Frigate

    I added to cart at 86. In cart down to 77. By the time I applied my credit and clicked Checkout, they were out of stock. There's one batch left. Maybe I'll get one of them. If not, I suspect that CIG will release at least one more batch sometime during this year's sale. And probably sometime in the future. What I don't understand is why CIG didn't make the warbond version have LTI? That's what CIG did this year ever since the Origin 100 series concept sale, but for the Idris-K Aftermarket Kit, even if you pay new $$$ for the warbond, you don't get LTI. That's idiotic! That means there's no incentive to pay new $$$ and is probably the reason the limited stock store-credit kits are going so fast. CIG's logic is baffling.
  12. Reavern

    Aegis Idris Frigate

    Gone in less than 30 seconds!
  13. Reavern

    Aegis Idris Frigate

    The first one wasn't exactly on the hour, so this one probably won't be either. Perhaps CIG is in league with the keyboard makers and they're hoping backers break their F5 keys.
  14. Reavern

    Aegis Idris Frigate

    I believe what it means is that the Idris-P Aftermarket Upgrade Kit will be sold in limited quantities for Store Credit, but forever for Warbond. So, if you're like me and done spending money on Star Citizen, you'd want to use your available store credit to buy one of the limited Aftermarket Upgrade Kits when they're available. If you can't get one while they're available, you'll be out of luck and have to spend new $$$ to buy it. And, of course, you can always save up UECs and buy the AUK in-game.
  15. Reavern

    Drake Kraken

    Ok, so the only difference between WB and non-WB is $250. I suppose I made the right choice by using my 20% Imperator discount code to buy the Hercules A2, instead of saving it for the Kraken. The discount maxes out at $100 anyway, so I didn't the full 20% for the A2. It would've been even less effective if I'd used it for the Kraken. And the A2 Warbond also came with a Tonk, worth $100, so it made more sense to buy with $$$. I glad that I didn't have to spend $1400 in new money to buy the Kraken. I didn't need that expense right now because I just spent that amount on a board game table on Kickstarter. I sure have a knack for picking expensive hobbies.
×
×
  • Create New...