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

3,789 profile views
  1. Based on my experience in AC dogfighting against Hornet Ghosts, I expect that the Prowler won't be detectable by standard sensors (unless it fires its weapons or engages its boost thrusters) and it will be difficult to spot visually. I think you're exaggerating how large the Prowler is. It's only 34 metres long by 33 metres wide 15 metres tall. In comparison, the Ghost is 22.5 m x 21.75 m x 5.6 m. A Ghost is difficult, but not impossible, to keep track of visually during a dogfight. Without a sensor lock, I think a Prowler will be difficult to spot at 1000+ metres and it could be easily overlooked if a player wasn't looking directly at it. If an Idris was just cruising around, I doubt its gun turrets would be manned, and even they were, the gunners wouldn't be paying close attention. Furthermore, the Idris has a complete blindspot on its ventral side, which any Prowler pilot could exploit. If the Idris was engaged in battle, the Prowler would coordinate with the attack force and approach from the Idris' blind flank. The attacking starfighters could lure away the Idris' escort ships or at least position themselves forward and above the frigate to draw the enemies' attention while the Prowler approaches undetected. Or the Prowler could mix in among a flight of bombers during a torpedo run against the enemy Idris. The gunners and escort fighters would be preoccupied trying to shoot down the torpedoes and bombers, and the Prowler could shadow a Retaliator or Harbinger, then breakaway as the bombers flew by -- the bombers could fly over the Idris' dorsal side and the Prowler could fly underneath, rapidly deploy its EVA boarding party, and then fly away. I think that EVA boarders will be able to cling to a cap ship's hull even if it's maneuvering at SCM speeds -- probably not at Cruise speeds though. The EVA flight/walking mechanics already work (fairly well) for space stations and CIG is working on improving them, probably for 3.0. I expect that boarders will be able to cling to a ship's hull while the ship is moving, just like they can while on the Starfarer's external platform. Boarders should be able to hack the controls of airlock doors, a docking port, or cargo/hangar bay doors. It won't (or shouldn't) be as quick and easy as if one of the crew opened the door, by simply clicking the Use button when the HUD prompt appears. I expect it will be a simple 5-10 second hacking mini-game to open the door. And there will probably be an advanced option for hacking the door without setting off any alarms. I expect there will also be an option for using a PAW to slice through doors and possibly even the ship's hull. Once the covert boarding party is aboard the cap ship, the chances of them remaining undetected are slim. But at that point the boarders have the advantage and can wreak a lot of havoc. As I said before, I think a covert boarding action will always be worth trying, regardless of the circumstance. Even if the Prowler was spotted by the enemy cap ship and/or its escorts, it could probably escape or deploy its boarding party before the enemy could stop it, thanks to its Phalanx shields.
  2. I think covert boarding ops are the best way to go, even if it's during a pitched battle. Why tip your hand before you have to? Why not try a covert boarding action using Prowlers and if it fails, have a Caterpillar fully loaded with a heavy assault team ready to jump in. It's always best to have a reserve force anyway. If the covert infiltration succeeded, the stealthy boarders could disable some of the cap ship's subsystems and open its external doors to allow the heavy assault team to easily board the enemy ship. The assault team could engage the enemy defenders head-on while the covert team could continue to sabotage the ship.If the covert infiltration failed, it would reveal that the enemy fleet is on the look out for boarders and is ready to repel boarding actions. The battle commander could use that info to decide whether to commit the Caterpillar assault team or not. Perhaps the enemy has several Redeemer gunships ready to shred boarding craft that approach the cap ship. Or the cap ship is loaded with marines that outnumber the assault team 2-1. The BC could order the fighters to hunt down the enemy gunships and eliminate them to clear the way for the Caterpillar heavy assault team. Or capturing the enemy cap ship would be too risky and costly, so the BC orders it to be torpedoed instead, thereby maximizing enemy losses. In that worst case scenario of the covert boarding party being detected and destroyed, it would be the smaller of the two boarding parties, so the consequences of a failed boarding action would be less. That's why I'd always be in favour of covert boarding actions first. Admittedly, I'm a little biased because I own a Prowler and am determined to justify its high price tag.
  3. I agree with Imperium's policy of not making our Org's Ship Numbers publicly available. Furthermore, the public forum is not the place where it would be discussed. I'll simply say that, regardless of what the instance cap will be in the PU launch, it will never be high enough for the largest Orgs to engage in a pitched battle with all of their warships. Even in EVE, which is point-&-click, the epic battles devolve into slideshows and take hours, sometimes days, to play out. I speculate the an optimistic instance cap that CIG could achieve is 100 vs 100 ship battles, and probably 100+ players per side, because multi-crew ships are slightly less resource intensive. Even if each side brought 10 Cap Ships, and the rest were starfighters and MC ships, that's only a fraction of the Org's fleet. Therefore, Org warfare will definitely be wars of attrition. Logistics will be vitally important, arguably more important than ship numbers or even player numbers. And I believe Org alliances will be the decisive factor. For example, if a Pirate Horde org is trolling Lawful Orgs, the best way to neutralize them is to form an alliance of Lawful Orgs and conduct a prolonged joint operation to grind the Pirate Horde into submission. Lawful Orgs have a distinct advantage over Criminal Orgs because they can use insurance to recoup their ship losses. Pirates can capture cap ships, but they can't insure them. In a full-scale war, Pirates would inevitably lose cap ships and couldn't replace them for free using insurance; they'd have to buy them or capture cap ships to replace their losses. In a prolonged war, the Pirates would eventually run out of ships and become bankrupt. That's why Ship Numbers aren't the only factor that matters. Regardless, there's no reason to post accurate, up-to-date Ship Numbers.
  4. I captured this screenshot from this week's Around the Verse video because of this unknown keyboard. A couple of years ago, I bought a Corsair K70 mechanical keyboard, which is great for gaming, but it's kinda big and clunky, and the keys are loud for the amount of typing I do. I'm in the market for a light, low-profile but full-size keyboard and this one, with Macbook-style keys, looks like something I'd like. I've searched everywhere I can think of, but couldn't find it. I know that CIG uses a lot of Logitech accessories, but I've searched their whole keyboard line-up and couldn't find it. I've looked at Corsair, Razer, SteelSeries, Cooler Master, and even Dell keyboards. Nothing. If anyone can help me by identifying this keyboard I'd sincerely appreciate it. Thanks!
  5. That was originally CIG's plan, but as you said, the Prospector's development has progressed so much that it'll probably be flight ready for 3.0. Also, it would kinda be pointless to introduce Mining without a mining ship. My prediction is that the Prospector will be sold again when 3.0 is released, and it's price will almost certainly go up since it's flight ready. I bought back the Prospector I melted a while ago since I wasn't planning on using my quarterly buyback credit for anything else. I don't know if I'll keep the Prospector long-term, but I want to try the mining mechanics for myself, since it's basically farming money (same as fuel harvesting). There will only be a finite number of missions, whereas mining should be virtually unlimited. What I'm wondering is how dangerous will mining be? And I'm not referring to the volatility of asteroids being mined (although that is a concern). I'm referring to the high probability of pirates griefing miners and stealing their extracted resources. Every time anything new has been released for the Crusader PU, like the Starfarer and Caterpillar, griefers sneak aboard the multi-crew ships, kill the crew, and steal the ship. If and when the Prospector is flyable, there will be ship parked on a planet or asteroid mining for resources, which might as well be a sitting duck for Pirates. I think players will learn hard lessons about solo mining debacles, so they'll need to team up with other players for protection, as well as hauling and trading.
  6. The reworked Cutlass Black's cargo bay looks huge now. It's kinda hard to judge for scale, but the cargo ramp door looks comparable to the Freelancer's, and the Cutlass' cargo bay bulges out on the sides so it's even wider. I wonder what Cutlass' cargo capacity is going to be. I wouldn't be surprised if it's greater than the Base Freelancer, but less than the MAX. I wonder what the rigging on the ceiling is? Is it just overhead storage or could it be some kind of crane on rails for hauling in salvage or loot? I can't wait for the new Cutlass Black to be released.
  7. I agree the stats don't make much sense. Firstly, there's discrepancy between the stat's single TR2 engine and the Hurricane's two main thrusters. I can't believe that there wasn't a question about that, or did CIG choose not to answer it. Second, why does the Hurricane have such a high top speed with a single TR2 when the Gladius has two TR2 engines and the Sabre has two TR3 engines? The Gladius is only 500 kg heavier than the Hurricane, so why wouldn't the Gladius have nearly twice the speed with two TR2s? The only explanation I can think of is that it's specific to the Hurricane's factory engine. It's tuned for high speed for the Hurricane's boom-&-zoom style of combat. So if the player equipped the Hurricane with a different engine, it would alter the heavy fighter's flight performance. Although, that probably wouldn't be a great idea for the Hurricane, because speed is probably its best defense. What would be interesting is acquiring a pair of Hurricane engines and installing them in a Gladius. If there's any logical consistency to the ships and engines, two Hurricane engines would give the Gladius an incredible top speed -- maybe turn it into a drag racer.
  8. I don't understand what you mean the "Buccaneer isn't a solo pilot... you can't solo it and hope to make money or even survive." The Bucc is a single-crew fighter, unlike the Hurricane, which has a manned turret. Supposedly the Hurricane's turret is controllable by the pilot, like the Super Hornet, so it will be possible to solo a Hurricane. Why wouldn't a Bucc be solo-able? If you mean that a Bucc is only good for attacking, but can't make any money from looting or salvaging because it has no cargo capacity, the Bucc should still be able to make money. A player can accept missions to eliminate Vanduul or NPC pirates and earn money that way. A player could use the Bucc for bounty hunting and earn money from "wanted dead or alive" warrants. There could also be NPC Pirate-generated missions that Pirate Buccs can perform for money. Of course, a Bucc working with other ships, like a Cutlass or Caterpillar, will be able to perform a wider assortment of missions, such as attacking and/or disabling a transport ship (NPC or player-operated) and looting its cargo. But I don't understand why you say a Bucc can't solo. I think a Bucc and Hurricane can solo, but it's much smarter to operate in groups, which is true for virtually any ship.
  9. Regardless of how many weapons there are, it's still a zero sum game that marginalizes player skill.
  10. It's difficult to guess (and all we can do is speculate) because the engines don't scale linearly. And the ship stats are notoriously unreliable. The first problem is that the stats claim the Hurricane has a single TR2 engine when the pics clearly show it has two engines. The supposed explanation is that it's a single engine connected to two main thrusters. I hate it when CIG does that. It's a stupid explanation and needlessly confusing. The Ship Specs don't account for this scenario of the number of main thrusters being different than the number of engines. I believe that CIG will revise the Hurricane's specs to 2 x TR1 engines, because it's much easier to revise the specs than redo the ship model. Regardless, for the moment, the Hurricane has a Max Engine Size of TR2 and is equipped with a TR2 engine. The F7C Hornet has a Max Engine Size of TR3 and is equipped with a TR2 engine. The Super Hornet and F7A Military Hornet have Max TR4 engines and are equipped with TR3 engines. It's unclear what TR2 engine the Hurricane has, but chances are it's different than the F7C's TR2 engine; regardless, let's assume that both TR2 engines are roughly equal. Since the Hurricane is 6000 kg lighter than the F7C, it's probably faster. Comparing the Hurricane's maneuverability is difficult because it's lighter, but it has 8 x TR1 maneuvering thrusters, whereas the F7C is heavier but it has 8 x TR2 manuevering thrusters. It's unclear which variable predominates, but I'm guessing they're roughly the same. I expect that the Hurricane's speed and maneuverability will be comparable to a F7C Hornet and slightly more agile than a Super Hornet. The problem is that the Hornet isn't exactly nimble compared to light fighters, and the Hurricane lacks the Hornet's shields and armour, so it's going to be an easy prey for interceptors. I'm concerned that CIG is going down a simplistic Rock-Paper-Scissors combat system for dogfighting, wherein an offense-only heavy fighter can defeat medium fighters like the Hornet, SH, and Vanguard, but the Hurricane will be get p0wned by light fighters. I don't like such a simplistic "weight" or "class" based combat system.
  11. I think the Hurricane is the most "video game-y" ship that CIG has ever created, because if this heavy fighter was represented by a ship's Weapons-Shields-Engines power distribution triangle, it would all be directed to weapons at the expense of shields and engines. CIG took that and turned it into a ship. In lore, it seems like it was designed by a nihilistic crackpot and no flesh-&-blood pilot would want to fly it IRL, because it's a death trap. It might as well be a kamikaze fighter. I can understand equipping a heavy fighter with 6 size 3 guns, but why equip it with light armour, 2 size1 shield gens, and 2 size1 engines!? It doesn't make sense. I sorta understand it having light armour, because heavier armour would hinder its speed and maneuverability. But why not equip it with tougher shields to compensate for its lack of armour? Or equip it with two Size2 engines to give it greater agility to evade enemy fire? Perhaps if these were the Second Tevarin War (2603-2610) vintage Hurricanes, I might understand why it was hastily designed that way, because the UEE rushed them into service to counter the Tevarin's phalanx shields. However, the Hurricane's description explains that this heavy fighter is from the late 29th century and was revived to deal with the increasing Vanduul threat. It doesn't make sense that Anvil Aerospace, of all ship manufacturers, would design a glass cannon with such poor survivability. It's the opposite of Anvil Aerospace's ship design philosophy and incongruous with every other ship in Anvil's catalog. The Hurricane seems more like a Vanduul Scythe or Glaive, except not as fast. The only way Anvil could've made the Hurricane "more extreme' (worse) is if they equipped it with all fixed-forward weapon hardpoints, instead of the gimbals and manned turret, then it would've been a Vanduul fighter. The Hurricane is a starfighter that could only exist in a video game, because death has no real consequence. I'm certain that the Hurricane will appeal to some Star Citizen players, probably the best dogfighters on the leaderboards -- who don't really need a ship like the Hurricane -- the gunslingers and thrustmasters who can fly circles around you in uncoupled flight while sniping you with ballistics or mass drivers. My prediction is that when the Hurricane is flyable there's going to be resurgence in Uncoupled Turreting: Hurricane pilots will camp in the corner of a map waiting for someone foolish enough to come at them, and they'll get sniped with ballistic alpha-strikes before they can land a shot on the Hurricane. The Hurricane is a ship that I would never buy unless I flight tested it first, because I'm certain it's a love-it or hate-it design. I've experimented with different starfighters and loadouts, and I've found success with fixed-gun Sabres and Gladius' and gimbal/turret Super Hornets. The Hurricane sounds like it's even less durable than a Sabre or Gladius and not as fast or maneuverable, which is crazy IMO. Fighting in a Hurricane, you might be able to score a few quick kills by ambushing or backstabbing enemy ships, but once the Hurricane has lost the element of surprise an enemy will inevitably get the heavy fighter in its sights and pulverize it. I bet a Sabre or Super Hornet will be able to take down a Hurricane just as quickly and easily as it could do to them. It's purely a matter of who lines up a shot first. I think that luck -- being at the right place at the right time to get a shot at the Hurricane -- will be just as important as skill when dealing with a Hurricane. That's not fun to me. I prefer the Sabre because when equipped with 4 x Size3 guns it can dish out a lot of damage, and if it comes under attack, it can survive several hits, and its fast and agile enough to get out of danger. That's the ship for me. I don't begrudge anyone for buying the Hurricane -- if you like it, go for it. But I'm certain that the combat style the Hurricane will demand won't appeal to many players. My prediction that a lot of players who buy the Warbond Hurricane are going to melt it after it's flyable, because it's too much of a glass cannon.
  12. Originally, yes, the F8 Lightning was replacing the F7A Military Hornet, but that's been changed. The F8 is classified as a Heavy Fighter, whereas the F7A is a Medium Fighter. Supposedly, according to the lore, the UEE commissioned the F8 heavy fighter to counter the Vanduul Stinger heavy fighter, which looks like it can eat Hornets for breakfast. Furthermore, CIG has developed the F7A Hornet Mk. II. It doesn't make sense to update the F7A if, according to the lore, it's being phased out of front-line service in favour of the F8, which was the lore backstory. If the Hurricane is both a heavy fighter and an older starfighter, as rumoured, I believe the lore explanation is that the Hurricane used to be the UEE military's heavy fighter, which was retired from service decades ago because the military didn't need a heavy fighter, but now with the Vanduul resurgence the UEE military desperately needs heavy fighters, so they're introducing the F8 and the retired Hurricanes are being released to the civilian market in hopes that militia forces will adopt them and be better equipped at dealing with Vanduul attacks. I guess we'll see tomorrow...
  13. 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.
  14. 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.