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.


Imperium Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Feedback


About Reavern

  • Rank
    Warrior Wordsmith
  • Birthday 09/20/1987

Profile Information

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

Star Citizen Info

  • Pledge
    Space Marshal

Recent Profile Visitors

4,606 profile views
  1. Happy Birthday!

  2. CIG is not going to design the cap ship game mechanics and net code so that the players serving aboard the ship will get dumped into space if the cap ship owner logs out or their connection fails. The cap ship will persist temporarily -- perhaps 10 minutes -- to allow players to either logout or depart in passenger transports. If there aren't passenger transports available, the crew could use the cap ship's escape pods. The cap ship would have limited functionality during that time; offensive weapons (rain guns, STS cannons, torpedoes, and missiles) would be disabled; defensive weapons would be operable to protect the cap ship from attackers; shields might be stronger and recharge faster than normal (because power would automatically be rerouted from the primary weapons); and engines might also be boosted to help the cap ship escape combat and quantum jump to the nearest armistice zone. The idea is that the cap ship won't vanish if the owner unexpectedly leaves, but if it happens in mid-battle, the Idris isn't going to be able to finish the fight. The other players crewing the ship will need to retreat ASAP. If there are ships aboard the the cap ship when it despawns, they won't get dumped into space. They'll despawn with the cap ship and be transferred to the nearest spaceport, where the player can spawn the ship after the usual waiting time (except the ship wasn't destroyed, just disappeared). Of course, if the cap ship owner granted access privileges to one of the other players crewing the ship, it wouldn't despawn if the owner left. The "second-in-command" would assume command of the ship and could use it. The cap owner would need to trust the other player to be responsible with the cap ship, so the decision to grant access privileges wouldn't be taken lightly.
  3. I don't believe that CIG will enforce strict realism, because there'd be too many complaints (i.e. every who complains about cockpit visibility). I think that CIG will implement some game-y compromises in the name of accessibility. One idea is a cooldown timer for spawning ships in player-owned cap ships. Players will always need to land their ships on the cap ship -- they can't spawn a ship out of thin air -- and when they log out, the ship despawns into a limited number of "offline" ship slots for that cap ship. (Not realistic, but acceptable.) When the player logs back in and spawns aboard the cap ship, they can spawn their ship if there's an unoccupied hangar landing pad, but there should be a 10 minute delay before the ship spawns. This will prevent a cap ship from scrambling extra fighters if it comes under attack. After the delay expires and the ship spawns, another ship cannot be spawned from the cap ship's "offline" ship slots for 30-60 minutes, to prevent exploits. And a cap ship has the same number of offline ship slots as landing pads, i.e. 3 for the Idris, 1 for the Javelin, and 1 for the Polaris. That said, I think this will rarely be a problem because there will be at least one spaceport, like Port Olisar, in every star system. Perhaps not Vanduul star systems or frontier/undiscovered star systems. But every UEE star system should have a spaceport. It would be "best practices" for a player to land and despawn their ship at a spaceport rather than a cap ship.
  4. I believe it will be handled similar to how players log in to the PU now. If the player logged out aboard the Idris Frigate, they can log back in aboard the ship and spawn inside one of crew quarters, similar to how players currently spawn inside a room in Port Olisar or Grim Hex. When they spawn aboard the Idris, their ship does not automatically spawn in the hangar. Similar to Port Olisar or Grim Hex, the player uses a computer terminal (or their Mobi-glass) to spawn their ship, but only if one of the "landing pads" in the hangar is unoccupied. The player can then hop in their ship and take off. When the ship takes off, the landing pad becomes available for another ship to spawn or land and occupy. Although, from a realism perspective, the Idris shouldn't be allowed to spawn any ship to its landing pads, because it's only supposed to be able to carry 3 ships. Spawning in a ship and taking off would essentially make the Idris a magic portal or stargate. Dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of ships could be spawned in through a single Idris. I don't think CIG will allow this, because it could be exploited to allow an invasion fleet to be spawned from across the galaxy using a single cap ship. That's unrealistic and too OP -- it can't be allowed! Ship spawning should be handled more realistically, wherein a player has to fly a ship and land aboard the Idris. The ship will occupy one of the three landing pads inside the Idris. It cannot be despawned from the Idris unless the player who owns the ship logs out. If three players land their ships on the Idris, then log out, three more ships can land. But if the original three players log back in while other three are logged in and landed, the first three players' ships will be automatically transferred to the nearest port -- or another cap ship with hangar space available. But I recognize that even that system could be exploited. CIG is going to have to figure out the ideal balance between strict realism and fun accessibility.
  5. I believe that the 300 models are more than "equipment packages" because the 315p has a bulkier engine section than the 300i or 325a, because it is factory equipped with a +1 size engine. So there is some variation between the different models. Although, the 300 series is receiving an update and rework, so it's TBD what they'll look like when they're done. Regardless, 600i editions are confusing, especially since CIG didn't include the option to buy the Touring or Exploration modules.
  6. Both the Touring/Luxury edition and Exploration edition are the same ship model, with different modules installed. That's why they're both the 600i, instead of the Exploration edition being called the "615p".
  7. There's no logic behind your focus on RL aircraft carrier having catapults as it relates to the Idris Frigate not having catapults, other than to deflect and redirect to this discuss into pointless tangent, in a transparent attempt to avoid acknowledging I'm correct. My point was that starfighters don't have to launch via the Idris' bow hangar door and land via its stern hangar door. They can takeoff and land from either direction. Starfighters don't need to turn around inside the hangar to takeoff via the stern door -- although they could, because the hangar appears wide enough. (WHY doesn't CIG tell us the exact dimensions of the Idris' hangar!?! Then we wouldn't have to ask "does this ship fit inside the Idris?" in every Concept Ship Sale. ) The Gladiator torpedo bomber is 22 metres long and 22 metres wide, and we know it can fit inside the Idris Frigate, so the Idris' hangar must be at least 22 metres wide. The Gladius is 20 metres long and 16 metres wide, so it can definitely turn around inside the Idris' hangar. A Hornet is 22.5 metres long and 21.75 metres wide (with wings extended). That's only a half metre longer than the Gladiator, so it should be able to turn around too. The Sabre is 26 metres long, which might be too long to safely turn around inside the hangar. Regardless, starfighters don't need to turnaround inside the Idris' hangar. Every ship in SC can take off vertically and has maneuvering thrusters -- because they fly in space. A starfighter could take off vertically, hover a couple of metres off the flight deck, and reverse out of the stern hangar door by Strafing Backward in Decoupled mode. It's simple as that.
  8. TheNoobifier posted this video wherein he talked about Ben's video: TheNoobifier makes many excellent points, such as the effort and production values that CIG used to put into new ship releases. I remember the first ship sales back in April 2013 when the Aurora was revealed. I remember the video commercials for the 300i, Hornet, Legionnaire, Freelancer, Constellation, M50, Mustang, and Cutlass. I remember the first Concept Ship Sales for the Herald, 890 Jump, Carrack, Reclaimer, Orion, Hull series, Genesis, Endeavor, and Vanguard. Those Concept Ship Sales had information about the role or profession each ship would perform in the PU. They didn't have Q&A's for those ships because they didn't need them. Now CIG puts minimal effort into Concept Sales and the majority of the ships are redundant, performing the same job or role as an existing ship at a different price point. CIG barely explains anything about the new ships, which is why the Q&A's are mandatory, and they only answer the most basic and obvious questions. There's always the obligatory ship size question. Can it fit inside an Idris (or Polaris or Javelin)? What's the ship's range? Does it come equipped with a jump drive? Does it have a bed? Can it land on a planet? CIG knows those questions are always asked, but they don't provide the answers upfront -- probably so that out of the 10 questions they choose to answer, half of them are softballs. Ben has been hyping the new "game changer" ship for weeks. I'm skeptical about how "game changing" it will truly be. What I really want is a detailed Concept Ship page that provides real information. For example, the Concept Ship page should include a side-by-side comparison diagram of the new ship with several existing ships of varying sizes. (The type of pics Star Citizen community members create, but done by CIG so we can be certain they're authentic and accurate.) There should also be a scale diagram of the Idris' hangar and the new ship inside it, with front, size, and top perspectives. If the ship fits, the diagram should indicate how many metres of clearance it has. If the ship does technically fit inside, but has minimal clearance on certain sides, the ship page should explain that the ship won't be allowed to land aboard the Idris because it's too tight and the risk of crashing will be too high. If the ship doesn't fit, the diagram should indicate where the ship would intersect with the Idris' walls or ceiling, to demonstrate precisely why it doesn't fit. Even if the ship was Constellation-size and therefore couldn't possibly fit inside an Idris or Javelin, CIG should include the ship size diagrams anyway, with the new ship sticking out of a semi-transparent capital ship to clearly indicate IT DOESN'T FIT! (Idiots will ask that pointless question anyway!) CIG should answer the other obligatory questions in the Concept Ship page, like this: Is the ship factory equipped with a jump drive? No, the ship has a factory installed quantum drive. A jump drive can be installed by the owner. What is the range of the ship? The ship has a medium range, which means it can jump across 2 star systems before it needs to refuel. Does the ship have a bed? No. Can the ship land on a planet? Yes. It should be as simple as that and done for every new Concept Ship -- even vehicles.
  9. I wouldn't call it a "good excuse", but it's definitely an explanation for why CIG screwed up the 600i Q&A. It never made sense that the 600i Luxury Ed. couldn't carry passengers, because it had basically the same facilities as the Phoenix: crew quarters + a luxury suite. If the 600i owner chooses to use the ship as a Luxury Touring ship, the captain will use the luxury suite. Whereas if they choose to use the ship as a Luxury Passenger transport, the captain will bunk with the crew and let the VIPs use the luxury suite. Simple. Somehow that obvious logic didn't occur to anyone involved in answering the 600i Q&A. I'd really like to know who actually answers these questions. Because it can't only be Ben Lesnick. Him being on medical leave this time doesn't explain how most of the other Concept Ship Q&A's have been screwed up too. The plausible explanation is that there are multiple sources of information (and opinion) about the ships, and the person or people who write the Q&A receive conflicting information, and struggle to condense it into a rational answer to the question. I suppose that we should give them credit for more than half the answers making sense... it's the other half that make no rational sense that cause all the problems.
  10. As I said before, "First In, First Out" is not the only way that starfighters can launch from the Idris Frigate. There's no reason why fighters can't exit from the aft hangar door. Or why fighters can't enter from the bow hangar door. The Idris doesn't use catapults to launch fighters, or arresting cables to stop fighters during landing. That means the Idris' hangar/flight deck is bi-directional. Just because the Gamescon demo showed the Gladius landing on the Idris Frigate via the aft hangar door doesn't mean that's the only possible way. Have some imagination!
  11. Ben is scrambling. I'm not surprised that Ben fessed up and admitted that the 600i Q&A was wrong. It shouldn't be so difficult to get a straight answer out of CIG. It's really a binary question: Can the 600i transport passengers for money? Yes or no? CIG said no, which didn't make sense -- but they stuck to that answer for more than a week. Finally CIG admits that they screwed up and that they will be revising the Q&A with the correct information. ... I wonder if that will ever actually happen. Because the Ship Stats page has been an unreliable mess since its inception, but CIG rarely corrects it. So what are the chances of CIG actually revising the 600i Q&A? I think it's more likely they'll make a second 600i Q&A post, correctly answering the questions -- but they'll leave the original Q&A up on RSI, causing perpetual confusion as people argue "The Q&A said this..." followed by "The first Q&A was wrong. The new Q&A says this!"
  12. The Phoenix comes with the Lynx Rover, which is supposed to fit inside the "vehicle bay" underneath the floor of the VIP section of the ship. CIG has said that the Phoenix can transport VIP passengers to generate money. In the Phoenix brochure, there are numerous references to the Phoenix catering to "guests": The Phoenix has 4 sleep/escape pods, plus the "master suite" for either the captain or VIP passengers. The Max Crew is "4 (6 total)". That means a crew of 4 plus 2 passengers. The Phoenix also has an expansion station for one of three modules: command, exploration, and entertainment. Why would the Phoenix have an entertainment module if it couldn't carry VIP NPCs? The Phoenix will be able to transport VIP NPCs because CIG said it would. Unless CIG revises that statement and says "We changed our minds and the Phoenix can't transport VIPs". I doubt CIG will do that because they don't want to piss off Phoenix owners. The difference is that CIG stated in the 600i Q&A that the Luxury Ed. can't transport passengers. It may not be logically consistent, but CIG has stated from the beginning that the 600i can't transport passengers, so they wouldn't be breaking their word if they changed it.
  13. TheNoobifier recently posted an informative video on Passenger Transport: Players will require special licenses to be commercial passenger transporters. Players will need to qualify for the licenses based on several factors. We know from CIG that reputation is a major aspect of passenger transportation. Another aspect will be the ship that the player owns. If a player applies for a passenger transportation license and their only ship is an Aurora, they won't be approved. CIG has said that the 600i Luxury Ed. cannot transport VIP passengers, therefore, if the 600i owner applies for a VIP passenger transportation license (or any passenger transportation license) they won't be approved because their ship isn't capable of transporting passengers. Without the VIP license, the player probably won't be able to log into the passenger transportation net and post that their ship is available to transport passengers. The 600i owner will be locked out of the system, so no NPCs, VIP or otherwise, will ever fly aboard the player's ship. There's no getting around it. The 600i can't transport VIP NPCs unless CIG decides to change the 600i Luxury Ed., re-design its interior and add a VIP suite, and officially allow it carry passengers.
  14. That's exactly what I meant by CIG doing a poor job hyping and justifying the 600i. The Q&A made it seem like both the Touring edition was useless for anything other than cruising around in a trophy ship, and the Exploration edition was just a smaller, less capable, more expensive, and shinier version of the Carrack. The only appeal of the 600i is that it's fancy. The Touring edition is a fancier version of the Phoenix, and the Exploration edition is a fancier version of the Aquila and Carrack. I understand that appeals to some backers, but it's a niche market. I think the pricing of the two models was very telling. I was surprised that the Exploration edition was more expensive than the Touring/Luxury edition, because that's the opposite of the Aquila and Phoenix. The reason seems to be that the Touring/Luxury edition cannot be used to transport VIPs, which is supposedly very profitable. The Touring edition isn't a revenue generating ship, it's a fancy toy. Whereas the Exploration edition is designed for exploration (obvi.), which can generate revenue. It would've been smarter if CIG had designed 3 models of the 600i: Touring Edition: Private star yacht, cannot carry VIPs = $375 Exploration Edition: Equipped with exploration module and includes Origin rover = $400 Luxury Edition: Equipped with luxury module for transporting VIP passengers = $435 I know that CIG said that they currently have no plans to design more modules for the 600i, but I suspect after criticisms about the 600i, they'll create a VIP Passenger module, which will be priced higher than the Exploration edition.
  15. Great video! TBH it's a shame that CIG didn't release videos like that to show off the PG planet/moon tech. Instead they did those unbearable hours-long Livestreams with DiscoLand and the painfully scripted and embarrassingly glitchy presentation demo. The vloggers definitely did a better job covering Star Citizen's Gamescon event than CIG. Daymar looks so beautiful and expansive that it makes me want to pull the trigger and buy the ultra widescreen curved 34" monitor that I've been coveting for nearly a year. Thus far, the space environments in Arena Commander and the mini-PU haven't warranted an ultra widescreen monitor, because there wasn't much to see on the periphery. But once Alpha 3.0 is released, I know I'll be spending a considerable amount of time skimming over the surface of planets and moons, searching for locations to explore and things to do. I think a UWS monitor will enhance that experience.