Jump to content


Imperium Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Feedback


Reavern last won the day on July 5

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

5,744 profile views
  1. 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.
  2. Reavern

    Drake Kraken

    I agree that the value of the Kraken isn't comparable to the Idris, but bear in mind that the Idris-M started at $1000, the civilian Idris-P (without the spinal Rail Gun) started at $1250 and is up around $1500 now. The Kraken is $1400 Warbond, which is $400 more than the Idris-M. And back in 2013, we were all paying cash for pledges. To be fair though, in 2013, the Idris-M was a corvette and half the size of the frigate version, so it more than doubled in value. The is slightly larger than the Idris and the Warbond price is around the same price as the Idris-P is sold at in 2018. So the price isn't unreasonable, relatively speaking (considering we're talking about dropping over a grand on a digital space ship for a game that is probably several years from being released). The reasons I chose to go ahead and buy the Kraken were: I had enough store credit to buy it (after I melted my Hammerhead and several other ships I've cooled on since buying them). The store credit Kraken does have LTI. I really, really, REALLY want a carrier for my squadron. I'm certain that Kraken will grow even larger by end of the ship development process so the Kraken's value will only increase. I'd argue that #4 is the most compelling reason to buy the Kraken. I've stated this fact countless times already, but it warrants repeating: Every ship in Star Citizen sized Large or larger have increased in size between Concept and Flight Ready. The Kraken will continue this trend. Definitely. It's currently 270 metres. I predict that the Kraken will end up at over 350 metres in length by the time it's flyable. The concept art depicts voluminous interior spaces, including multiple Hangars, the Dragonfly bay, Engineering, and two large Cargo Holds. Those rooms and spaces appear much greater in size and scale compared to the Idris walkthrough we saw last year. And those are just the rooms featured in the concept art. There are countless utilitarian things the Kraken will need, such as crew quarters, mess hall, washrooms, various amenities, and probably a med bay and armoury. It doesn't appear CIG has accounted for those fundamentals, and even if they have, CIG always under-estimates their size requirements in the concept phase. That's why I'm certain the Kraken will grow larger and why it makes sense to get one now, if you can.
  3. Reavern

    Drake Kraken

    No batches. It appears that everyone in Waves 1-6 has one Kraken hull reserved for them. If the approved backers don't buy their reserved Kraken, those ships will be available for Wave 7 backers to buy.
  4. Reavern

    Drake Kraken

    Got mine. $1650 store credit and the non-Warbond Kraken does come with LTI, so I bought it. I didn't even bother the check the Warbond Kraken, and the buy options disappear after you buy one. Can anyone tell me if the Kraken Warbond comes with any bonuses or perks?
  5. Reavern

    Drake Kraken

    Based on the Valkyrie sale, there is the Ground Invasion for $2300 that does have LTI, but that non-WB pack is over $2000. I vaguely recall some ship packs from earlier this year in the $1000-1500 range that didn't have LTI, which is why I'm uncertain if a non-WB Kraken will have LTI. It definitely should, but who knows what CIG will do for this cap ship sale? Also, a key difference is a package versus an individual ship. Packages are more likely to have LTI. The Hercules A2 was $700 and it didn't have LTI. And the Hammerhead is $725 and it doesn't have LTI either. But the Escort Pack does have LTI for $1325. I think if the non-WB Kraken is less than $1000, it definitely won't have LTI. But if the Warbond Kraken is $1000 and the non-WB Kraken is $1100+, they both might have LTI. I think the Kraken will definitely be over $1000, and there's a 50/50 chance CIG will give the non-WB Kraken LTI. Although I think the price difference between the WB and standard edition Kraken will be in excess of $200, to strongly entice the space whales to spend new money.
  6. Reavern

    Drake Kraken

    I also received an email for Wave 1 of the Kraken sale. I read the 3 quotes from the email, and I admit mine wasn't as poetic. It was only two short paragraphs about Eclipse Squadron, my intention to use the Kraken as a carrier and command ship for Vanduul Hunting, and a vaguely human supremacist declaration to purge the galaxy of all hostile aliens. 😈 I'm not naive, so I think the primary factor in CIG's selection criteria for Wave 1 was that you're a high-level backer already: i.e. a space whale. Being a Subscriber also helps. Regardless, I kinda like that CIG is switching things up regarding how they do these limited cap ship sales. Submitting a written composition and CIG selecting backers based on what they intend to use the Kraken for is more interesting and engaging than past limited sales. At least a written "declaration of intent" requires backers to think for a half a minute about why they want the new cap ship and what they plan to do with it. And while it should be easy for anyone to write a bunch of BS about using the Kraken for good, I'm certain there are countless shameless griefers out there who honestly wrote that they intend to use the Kraken for piracy and basically attacking any player or NPC ship they encounter. Idiots like that just can't help themselves. Presumably, CIG ruled them out and they didn't receive a Kraken email -- or at least not for Wave 1. I'm certain that CIG wants to sell every Kraken that's available, so if they don't sell out in the initial Waves, CIG will probably keep sending out the emails until they're all gone. I don't know if I'll actually buy a Kraken tonight. It depends on how much it costs and if I can use store credit. I'm certain I'll have to use store credit because I assume the Kraken is going to be $1000+.If the Kraken doesn't have LTI if it's purchased with store credit, then I won't be getting it under any circumstances. I hope that CIG dials back the greed this time and doesn't apply that BS new rule that only Warbond editions have LTI, which means the ship has to be purchased with new money. I didn't like that rule when it was applied to less expensive ships -- not even the Origin 100 series -- but it definitely should not be applied to $1000+ cap ships (or ship packs). If CIG wants to entice backers to spend new money, they should give Warbond editions special bonuses or perks, like custom skins (i.e. the Valkyrie Liberator edition), but LTI shouldn't be exclusive to Warbonds -- definitely not for $1000+ ships. (Although I'd support LTI not being exclusive to any Warbond ship, no matter how inexpensive it is.) I guess all that we can do is wait and see what the price of the Kraken will be.
  7. I don't think the problem is with the UEC ship prices that were revealed. It's how much missions will payout and the profit margins on resources and trade goods in PU. An Aurora could be 1 billion UECs, but if the average milk run pays 50 million UECs, that new ship is attainable in just 20 successful missions. Obviously, the payout and profit margins currently in the Alpha PU are absurdly small. Most missions don't even pay 1000 UECs and the margins on legal trade items are so small that you can load a Caterpillar to capacity and only make 1000-2000 UECs per haul. The prospect of using a mid-high tier ship, like a Caterpillar, to grind for UECs just to afford a starter ship, like the Aurura, is ridiculous. Imagine if you only had an Aurora and you tried trading exclusively; how long would it take to earn enough to purchase a Freelancer? Because a Freelancer is probably about to be around the price of the Prospector. I imagine it would take 50+ hours of grinding to go from an Aurora to a Freelancer, based on the current mission/trade payouts. That needs to be fixed, and I have to assume CIG understands that. I'm certain that they've put A LOT of thought into the prices before they settled on the UEC prices for the Aurora, Prospector, and Hammerhead. They know that Alpha PU doesn't pay out enough aUECs for players to buy ships in-game without excessive grinding. I don't believe that the high UEC price is a greed-driven diabolical scheme to pressure backers to buy ships using $$$. I believe CIG will adjust the payouts in the Alpha PU in 3.3 so that players can afford to buy ships in-game if they put in a reasonable amount of time and effort. So I don't think this is something we should panic about or that we need to protest against CIG about this. I think we should wait until 3.3 is released and see if the payouts are adjusted to a reasonable level. However, I think the UEC ship prices should remain the same as they were just revealed because they make sense. I was worried before because of the price of a space suit or combat suit was 10,000-20,000 UECs, and according to CR's statements from years ago an Aurora would supposedly cost 100,000 UECs and a Hornet would cost 300,000 UECs. It didn't make sense a space ship only cost the price of 10 space suits. So I think the relative prices of items compared to space ships is reasonable.
  8. Reavern

    Hammerhead - Corvette Anti-fighter

    'Preciate the heads up, but I picked up a Raven back in June. That's why I'm eager to test out how effective it is against a HH. Now I have to decide what to do with my Warlock, since it's redundant. I'm thinking about CCU-ing it to a Sentinel when it becomes available again. I'm interested in what the Sentinel can do versus the Hammerhead. Unfortunately, CIG hasn't mentioned much about e-warfare and who knows if e-warfare gameplay will be introduced when the Sentinel becomes flyable? BTW, what happened to the Harbinger and Sentinel? They used to be on the Roadmap, I recall under 3.2 or 3.3 -- I can't remember exactly. But the Ship Matrix says they're "Concept Complete" but not flyable. Where'd they go?
  9. Reavern

    Hammerhead - Corvette Anti-fighter

    I'm eager to see what happens when a fully crewed Hammerhead is attacked by stealth ships like the Hornet Ghost, Sabre Raven, and Eclipse. I think that, even though the stealth mechanics aren't fully cooked yet, stealth ships will be very difficult for the Hammerhead to detect and the gunners will have to track them visually. I've done this in Arena Commander when dogfighting against a Hornet Ghost, so I know it's possible. However, a Ghost/Raven/Eclipse can fly circles around a Hammerhead and will be able to fly in and out of a turret's firing arc, so one particular gunner can't keep sight of it. That would make it a lot more difficult to track and shoot. It might not even matter if it's possible for a Raven to sneak up close the fry the HH with its EMP. Then multiple Eclipses could hit it with torpedoes while its shields are down and turrets are offline. I recall seeing a video of an Eclipse torpedoing a shielded Starfarer and it failed to destroy it after 3 consecutive torpedo strikes. The Starfarer's shields at least partially recharged in the time it took for the Eclipse to load the next torpedo, launch it, and impact the ship. The Hammerhead is presumably tougher than a Starfarer, so I expect it can tank single torpedo strikes if its shields are up. It'll probably take multiple Eclipses to breach the Hammerhead's shields and hit hull. However, if the shields are taken down by an EMP, I think a single S9 torpedo could inflict severe damage to a HH. I recall in another Eclipse video, the Eclipse pilot was testing his torpedoes against a friend's Caterpillar. The Cat turned off its shields and the second torpedo destroyed the ship. I expect it would take at least 3 torpedoes to completely destroy an un-shielded HH. I'm interested to find out. It won't be possible for a while, but I'm most interested in testing if a Prowler can stealth approach a HH, deploy boarding units EVA, and if they can board and capture the HH. Unfortunately, the Prowler isn't even on the Roadmap so it'll be a while before it's flyable.
  10. Reavern

    Hammerhead - Corvette Anti-fighter

    Why don't you bother READING my posts instead of knee-jerk replying? What you posted doesn't refute the point I was making -- it confirms it. I know that the Hammerhead's stats on the Concept Sale page are incorrect. That was my point! 🙄 The HH's stats changed (or were incorrect) during the November 2017 concept sale itself, which proves that CIG does change the ships and/or makes mistakes. The HH ship designers explained in the AtV/SS video that there wasn't room for all the amenities and rooms on a single deck inside the HH, which is why they changed the HH's interior and added a second deck. The HH's design changed, just as I predicted. That's why your comments, and the others like you on this thread, with the attitude that the Hammerhead design hasn't changed and will never change, are so blatantly wrong and ridiculous. You can try to deflect the issue with nonsensical arguments, and conspicuously ignore all of the things I was right about so you can avoid admitting you were wrong, but I'm going to continue calling you out for it so everyone knows what you really are.
  11. Reavern

    Hammerhead - Corvette Anti-fighter

    I agree that we won't know the 2018 Hammerhead's revised ship specs until 3.3 is released. Regardless, I am 100% certain that they'll be different than 2017 because I don't believe for a second that the Hammerhead will be the only ship that CIG has ever developed that remained the same size from concept to flyable. (I'm also 100% certain that the 2018 Hammerhead won't be the final design either.) I've seen that AtV/SS video multiple times already and none of the interviewees said that the Hammerhead's dimensions are "exactly the same". I acknowledge that they didn't say the ship has grown either -- so it's a stalemate, at best. (Ambiguity sucks!) Regardless, I guarantee the ship's dimensions have changed since 2017. They did say that they lowered the back half of the ship in order to fit the galley and other amenities on the upper deck. How could they lower the cargo hold and crew quarters inside the ship without also lowering the ventral hull? It doesn't matter if they raised the dorsal hull or lowered the ventral hull to fit in two decks, the point is that the distance between the dorsal and ventral hulls has increased to accommodate two decks, therefore, the Hammerhead's size has changed. The fact that the Hammerhead now has two decks is incontrovertible proof the Hammerhead's design has changed since 2017, as I said it would. @Devil Khan can be petty and refuse to acknowledge that I was right about the Hammerhead changing, but it's only a matter of time until the CIG reveals all of the changes they've made to the Hammerhead since the 2017 concept sale. Although, we'll have to rely on Turbulent to post those 2018 Hammerhead ship specs, so who knows what will happen? 😖 The Hammerhead's Concept Sale Page still has these ship dimensions posted: HAMMERHEAD MAX CREW 9 LENGTH 100M WIDTH 40M HEIGHT 20M Who knows where Turbulent got those ship specs from? And I remember a comment I made in this thread about the Hammerhead's mass only being 195,000 kg, which had to be wrong. Now it's 4,260,000 kg on the Ship Matrix. That's a helluva weight gain. I sincerely wish that CIG would take over responsibility for maintaining the RSI site. Or if they explicitly stated the correct ship specs in their videos (both verbally and with an on-screen graphic) because we know that video content comes from CIG, not Turbulent. If the ship specs were included in videos it would preserve a record of how they changed over time. We could go back to a video from Nov 2017 and see the Hammerhead's specs were this. Then in the latest AtV/SS video from September 2018 the HH's specs were that. We could track the changes and go by the most up-to-date source. It would settle a lot of pointless arguments. But I don't think CIG wants an easy way of keeping track of all of their mistakes.
  12. Reavern

    Hammerhead - Corvette Anti-fighter

    I'm not surprised that you refuse to admit that you were wrong despite the fact that CIG has used "capital ship" to describe the Hammerhead on innumerable occasions, both back in November/December 2017 and now in September 2018. As I stated before, your failing is that you treat what CIG writes on the ship pages as gospel. Firstly, the RSI site is riddled with mistakes and contradictions. We all know this. So you treating it like it's 100% accurate and consistent is ridiculous! Second, every ship has changed during its development, and every large and cap ship has grown larger. The Hammerhead abides by this unwritten rule of ship development. As my quotes from November 2017 prove, I recognized that the HH's interior design didn't make sense and was incomplete because it obviously lacked a path to the ventral bridge, the crew quarters were too small, the ship lacked any amenities, and having the cargo bay in the engine room made no sense. I predicted that CIG would re-design the Hammerhead and enlarge it to fit everything it needed inside. Whereas you were among the people on this thread who stubbornly defended the 2017 Hammerhead design and declared it wouldn't change. Wrong. The 115m x 75m x 16m stats you quoted are from 2017 -- they're in the ship brochure! CIG just revealed that they've re-designed the Hammerhead with a second deck. Do you really believe the stats are the same now? Really? 🤨 Ok, the HH ship designers didn't mention any specific stats in the Ship Shape video, but once again I guarantee that the Hammerhead has grown since 2017. To add a second deck, the Hammerhead must be taller. Logically, it would have to be at least 2 metres taller -- yunno, so the crew could stand upright on the upper deck. It's probably taller than that but I can only guestimate. Since the HH must be taller, consequently, to preserve the ship's exterior design and proportions, its length and width also must've increased. That's perfectly logical and not a bad thing because it makes the ship designers' jobs easier to cram everything inside the hull. The CIG ship designers aren't going to restrict themselves to the 2017 Hammerhead's specs just because people like you @Devil Khan absurdly believe that ship stats are written in stone and can never change. The people are working at CIG and Foundry 42 are smart, talented people who actually know what they're talking about. Regardless, I suppose it'll only be a few more months until the Hammerhead is flyable and the revised ship specs are revealed, and I'll be proven right again.
  13. Reavern

    Hammerhead - Corvette Anti-fighter

    Correct, I wasn't referring to you. There were several posters from last November who disagreed with my analysis and TC-ing about the HH. The one in particular that I was referring to is active on this thread so he knows the Hammerhead's design has changed and it is now a capital ship. I wonder if he has the integrity to acknowledge that he was wrong and apologize. I don't mind people disagreeing with me, because I enjoy a spirited debate with intelligent, rational people. When a poster makes a well-written, detailed post about a topic, I always prefer and enjoy reading those posts -- instead of trite 1-2 sentences posts, which belong on twitter or someone's Facebook wall instead. It's when those small-minded people who are intolerant of different opinions and want to shut down discussion, speculation, and theorycrafting with the lame catch-all argument "that's not what CIG says!" that's when I get annoyed. And that's why I couldn't resist doing a victory lap to rub it in their faces. I agree that the escape pod and the power management issues are concerning and kinda baffling. Having one less escape pod compared to the Hammerhead's full crew size doesn't make any sense -- unless one escape pod is a double or something. But the placement is poor. It's kinda the opposite the problem with the Retaliator. The Tali's escape pods are in the upper deck behind the cockpit, which isn't too far for the pilot and top-fore turret gunner, but the rest of the crew manning the turrets in the back are screwed! For the Hammerhead, 4 of 6 gunners are close to the escape pods, but the 2 side-fore gunners and the bridge crew are screwed. It would be cool if the bridge could detach from the main hull and serve as a lifeboat, similar to the Vanguard Warden's escape module. The best solution is to fill in that pointless gap in the middle of the hull and put 5 escape pods or an actual lifeboat there. The limitation of the power plant seems really game-y IMO. I think CIG understands that the HH is OP'd versus fighters so they've given it an under-powered power plant so it can't have all 6 turrets firing quad laser repeaters simultaneously. They're compelling the HH owner to swap the LRs to ballistics, which have limited ammo. I'm hoping the power issue can be resolved by buying a superior after-market power plant, but since CIG obviously chose to impose the power limitation they presumably aren't going to allow an easy fix. They're going to compel HH owners to compromise and make a difficult choice. It's annoying but understandable because it's a game. (IRL it would be inexcusable.) I doubt fighters -- at least not player-flown fighters -- will fly close enough to a HH that they'll be shredded as quickly as you suggest. Only NPCs are that dumb. I think players will linger beyond the HH's effective range and execute strafing runs against it so they're in and out before multiple turrets can concentrate fire on them. Regardless, I think in a combat situation that most of the HH's turrets will need to be firing almost constantly -- only pausing to let the laser repeaters cool down -- because the only way an opposing force has a chance against the HH is if they have a dozen or more ships and swarm it. If the HH doesn't have sufficient power to keep its guns firing, it's just a matter of time before its turrets run short on power and it becomes vulnerable to the enemy swarm. As for the escape pods, it doesn't make any sense to have fewer escape pods than the full crew size. That's a lesson humanity learned the hard way with the Titanic. I can't imagine why in the 30th century a warship would be designed with one less escape pod than it needs, so the ship designers basically are condemning one person to die. It might just be that CIG figures that in the Alpha the number of HH owners who will fly the ship with a full crew will be extremely small. CIG will almost certainly take a second pass at the Hammerhead at some point and presumably rework the design to include sufficient number of escape pods for the whole crew.
  14. Reavern

    Hammerhead - Corvette Anti-fighter

    I'm impressed that CIG has nearly completed the Hammerhead in less than a year and it'll be flyable soon. They explained that they utilized existing assets from the Retaliator and Javelin to speed up the process. When CIG pulls something like this off, it's all the more frustrating that older ships, like the Banu Merchantman, which was revealed in November 2013, isn't flyable yet. Regardless, I'm pleased that the Hammerhead's interior has been revised and expanded -- as I predicted and knew it would be. It's no surprise to me that the HH's interior would be changed because the original concept schematics were obviously WIP and not final designs. Remember these: I don't have a quote, but I recall someone at CIG saying that the Hammerhead was a "single deck ship", which is what the concept schematic and interior layout depict. But I knew they were wrong. There's no door, ladder, stairs, or elevator to the ship's bridge -- that's a major design flaw. There were plenty of other indicators that the design wasn't complete -- the most obvious being that it was a CONCEPT SHIP! I knew the Hammerhead would have to change and expand to become a fully functional ship. Whereas numerous posters on this thread treated CIG's word as gospel, believing that the Hammerhead was a "gunboat" and not a capital ship (which CIG contradicted within a week of the HH's concept sale). Someone on this thread told me "Hammerhead is not a cap ship." To which I replied, "It will be." They also believed that the HH's stated 100-metres length was set in stone (below the threshold of a capital ship) and that its size wouldn't change. I pointed out how ridiculous that opinion was because every ship has changed during its development and every large ship and capital ship has grown larger from concept to flyable. Despite those facts, there were people who were adamant that what CIG said about the Hammerhead would never change. 🤣 Watching the Ship Shape and LawoftheWest's videos, even I am amazed at how accurate my analysis and theorycrafting was. Compare what Law said about the HH to my posts from November 2017 and he could've been reading from my posts: My point isn't that I was right, it's that now that everyone can see that I was right, I wish people would be more open-minded about speculation and theorycrafting here on this forum (that's kinda the point of its existence!) instead of being so close-minded and treating CIG's word as gospel, which cannot ever be questioned or challenged. Their attitude is that if CIG didn't say it, it's worthless. Whereas because their opinions simply parrot whatever CIG says (at the time), they are automatically correct. I take considerable time and effort to compose my posts and present my well-reasoned points and rational arguments, but too often it's like debating a 3rd grader whose juvenile response is covering their ears and screaming "La-la-la-la-la-not-listening-la-la-la-la-la!" That's never been my mindset, which is why I often have dissenting opinions and post my speculation and criticisms about CIG's ship designs and Q&A's -- which, as everyone can see, often end up being correct. (CIG just needs about a year to catch up to my thinking. Just give them time. 😏) Now that the Hammerhead's updated design has been revealed and its nearly flight ready, I'm glad that I melted my Polaris Corvette for it and look forward to flying it in the PU -- assuming that it doesn't get delayed, like OCS and Hursten. 😡When the HH is flyable in the PU, I assume that it'll land on a large pad, like the Starfarer. Although, it would be great if it could dock at Port Olisar and other stations using its docking ports, especially the one on its bow, as depicted in the concept art. That seems like a much better way to dock a ship the size of a HH, instead of a huge landing pad. I think for the Alpha, CIG will stick with the landing pads. But one day I hope they have cap ships use docking ports instead, which is far more realistic and more aesthetically pleasing -- instead of having space station with impractically huge landing pads for 100+ metre ships. Also, being able to walk directly onto a large ship via a docking port would be far superior to using an airlock and spacewalking to board your ship as you do now. Docking ports would be more convenient and realistic (thereby immersive).
  15. Reavern

    Star Trek Captain Picard Returns

    Spectacular news! I grew up on TNG, so it's a dream come true for Patrick Stewart to return for a new Star Trek series.