Jump to content

Reavern

Imperium Member
  • Content count

    3,138
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    50
  • Feedback

    100%

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

Recent Profile Visitors

5,550 profile views
  1. Aegis Reclaimer

    Law demonstrated it was possible to complete combat missions with the Reclaimer, but it wasn't exactly thrilling. I don't know what weapons Law was using -- they appeared to be either quad gimballed cannons or two remote turrets, with laser repeaters. I'd guestimate that a solo Reclaimer has roughly the same firepower as a solo Constellation, excluding any missiles. I think Law is correct: The Reclaimer is a tank versus the hapless AI Pirates because they aren't smart enough to focus fire on the Reclaimer. The AI is torn between attacking the escort ship and the Reclaimer. Even when the AI attacks the Reclaimer, they don't focus on it long enough to sap its shields and inflict real damage. That's the only reason Law's Reclaimer survived and defeated them: incompetent AI enemies. That one Gladius or definitely the Constellation could've destroyed the Reclaimer if it was player-controlled. It's unclear how long the 600i had been attacking the Reclaimer (near the end of the video) before it destroyed the heavy salvage ship. Probably not long. So it appears that, like the Hurricane, the Reclaimer is made of explodium. Once its shields are down, it's a powder keg waiting to go off. CIG needs to fix that. The Reclaimer shouldn't be an invincible tank, but it should be much tougher than it is now. I'd be interested to see the Reclaimer fully crewed with gunners, fighting AI enemies and then real players. I don't think it would stand a chance until CIG fixes the ship exploding problem.
  2. Aegis Eclispe

    The Retaliator should be able to fire 4 torpedoes for its first volley, and 2 torpedoes for its second. (Although that will hopefully change if and when the Tali is reworked.) The Tali's ability to launch multiple torpedoes at once is its best selling features. The Tali can spam multiple torpedoes at a large ship or cap ship, so even with point defense weapons, chances are that some of the torpedoes will get through and hit the target. As I've mentioned before, I believe that when bombers, torpedoes, and stealth are more developed, we'll either have dumb-fire torpedoes or the ability to disable the targeting sensors/guidance systems of torpedoes, so the targeted ship won't be alerted that it's being targeted by a missile or torpedo. That should allow an Eclipse to execute a stealth torpedo run by launching an unguided torpedo at the enemy ship, which would impact with little to no warning. I predict that is how Eclipses will be used most of the time. Using guided torpedoes spoils the element of surprise, so it only makes sense for there to be a way of torpedoing an enemy ship without being detected.
  3. Aegis Eclispe

    It depends on the civilian ship. The Reclaimer is one of the largest and probably the toughest of the Industrial ships, so I think it will be more resistant to damage. Considering that the Reclaimer's job is to get in close to derelict ships, grab them with its gripper arm, and cut the ship apart, there's an inherent risk of large pieces of the derelict breaking loose and colliding with the Reclaimer, so it has to be tough, with strong shields and a reinforced hull, which should provide protection against torpedoes. Whereas the Starfarer will be very vulnerable because even if its shields don't collapse from a torpedo impact, explosive damage bleeding through the shields could rupture the external fuel tanks and blow up the ship. Presumably, the Gemini will be tougher because it's a military conversion. I don't think that the high cost of torpedoes should be the main factor in balancing bombers vs. other ships because that will only encourage and reward P2W players, as well as large Pirate/Criminal Orgs. Bombers can't be OP'd, just like fighters cannot continue being OP'd versus large ships, as seen in Law's video. I'm certain that CIG will revise the ship balance, but I don't think they'll allow the Eclipse to easily solo kill a large ship, like the Reclaimer.
  4. Aegis Eclispe

    In the video that I posted, you can see that the Eclipse's torpedoes sapped the Reclaimer's shields to ~50% but they inflicted no damage to its hull. I believe that's how they're supposed to work. Missiles/torpedoes in Star Citizen aren't like proton torpedoes in Star Wars, which pass through ray shields, but are blocked by "particle shields". Star Citizen shields provide protection against both ballistic and energy weapons, however, ballistics pass through the shields while being slowed down by them, and impact the hull, inflicting damage. Energy weapons, like lasers, are absorbed by the shields until the shields overload and collapse, then the lasers inflict heavy damage to the ship's hull. Missiles are different than bullets because they are armed with warheads that detonate on impact. If the target ship has shields, the missile will detonate against the shields. If the ship's shields have collapsed, the missile will impact against the hull and inflict severe damage, possibly destroying the ship. Missiles don't penetrate the shields and then detonate. That's why it's best to sap the enemy ship's shields with guns and then launch a missile to finish it, so the shields don't absorb explosive damage.
  5. Aegis Eclispe

    Check out this combat ship test of the Eclipse vs. the Reclaimer compared to the Esperia Blade vs. the Reclaimer: The Eclipse's gun and torpedoes can't even penetrate the Reclaimer's shields, whereas the Blade's dual S2 lasers sap the Reclaimer's shields in less than 15 seconds of continuous fire (slowed down at the end by overheating). After the shields collapse, the Blade blows off one of the Reclaimer's main engines after 10 seconds of slow, OH'd laser fire. Within 30 seconds, the Reclaimer explodes! Law drove home the point about how the Reclaimer is strong vs. bombers, like the Eclipse, but ridiculously weak vs. light fighters, like the Blade. I agree with Law that the Eclipse shouldn't be able to take out a Reclaimer solo, so it's fairly balanced with Reclaimer. The only questionable thing from the video was how Law was launching torpedoes at the starboard side of the Reclaimer, but when the torpedo impacted, it sapped the port, fore, and aft shields to ~50%, whereas the starboard shields didn't even register an impact and remained at 100%. The same thing occurred for all 3 torpedoes. I also noticed that the torpedoes would fly erratically when they were close to the Reclaimer, as if they were being jammed or fooled by countermeasures. But no one was controlling the Reclaimer and the Argos IX torpedoes are cross-section targeted torpedoes, so flares and chaff shouldn't do anything against them, even if they were used. Considering that the Reclaimer was stationary, I can't imagine how the torpedoes could be confused by its cross-section. I'm wondering if the torpedo somehow missed and then looped back around and impacted the port side of the Reclaimer instead. I think this is a glitch, probably with the Eclipse and/or the Argos IX torpedoes, not with the Reclaimer. I wonder if and when it's fixed if the Eclipse will be far more effective against the Reclaimer. I think the Eclipse's torpedoes should be more effective. I think one torpedo should deplete the impacted shield quadrant to 20-30%. The second torpedo should be launched fast enough that it impacts before the Reclaimer's shields can regenerate to 50%, and the second torpedo would collapse the weakened shield quadrant to 0% and inflict some hull damage. The third torpedo should impact before the shields have regenerated to 20% and should severely damage the Reclaimer. If the torpedo impacted the starboard engine, it should destroy that engine. If the third torpedo impacted the main hull near where the power plant is located, it could rupture the power plant and destroy the ship. That would be for an unmanned Reclaimer that was a sitting duck. In a realistic combat scenario, the Reclaimer wouldn't just sit there. It would have a pilot flying the ship and should have gunners in the turrets trying to shoot down the incoming torpedoes. The Reclaimer might get blindsided by the stealthy Eclipse's first torpedo attack, but it wouldn't suffer enough damage to matter. After the first strike, the Reclaimer pilot should be maneuvering the ship so that the weakened shield quadrant isn't facing the second torpedo. Granted, the Eclipse probably shouldn't be detectable by the Reclaimer, so the pilot won't know which direction the second torpedo is coming from. Regardless, a smart pilot would reorient the ship so the unseen Eclipse can't torpedo the Reclaimer from the same side. The Eclipse would have to fly and realign itself to attack the weakened shield quadrant, which would take time and the shield would have more time to regenerate. Even if the Reclaimer can't detect the Eclipse stealth bomber on its sensors, it should be able to detect when the torpedo is locked on and inbound. Therefore, the Reclaimer's gunners should be able to detect and/or see the incoming torpedo and try to shoot it down. I'll estimate their odds of shooting down the 2nd and 3rd torpedo are 50%, which means the Reclaimer will probably suffer 2 torpedo impacts. That shouldn't be enough to destroy it, so the Reclaimer would survive the attack from the solo Eclipse stealth bomber. I think that's fair. If there were two Eclipse bombers or the Eclipse was working with fighters, which sapped the Reclaimer's shields and kept them from regenerating, the Reclaimer would be defeated and destroyed. I think that would be a "fair and balanced" combat scenario because the Eclipse can't solo kill a large non-combat ship, like the Reclaimer, but when operating in an attack group, the Eclipse should be deadly. I also think that the Eclipse should be able to launch its torpedoes faster. I understand why the Eclipse can't launch all three torpedoes at once, contrary to its depiction in the concept art. However, it shouldn't take 20 seconds to launch the next torpedo, especially against the same target. I think the Eclipse should be able to queue multiple torpedoes against the same target and launch them consecutively after a ~ 5-second delay while the next torpedo is loaded into launch position. I think all bombers should be able to launch torpedoes faster because the wait time for all missiles Size5 or larger is too long. The long wait time to launch torpedoes reduces the effectiveness of all bombers, whereas fighters are ridiculously OP'd against large ships.
  6. Anvil - Hurricane

    Those videos don't portray the Hurricane very well. The first one was the saw Law video I posted earlier, wherein he gets blown up in 3 seconds, and then his wingmate crashes into him. In the other videos, he was fighting AI Pirates that were hopelessly inept. The AI ships frequently just stopped dead and waited to be destroyed. The Hurricane didn't suffer any hits, which is presumably how it survived. But the pilot of the Hurricane certainly wasn't making it easy for the gunner. It's difficult to judge if the pilot was terrible or the Hurricane has poor maneuverability, but the gunner was struggling to keep the turret on target. Also, the Hurricane's quad ballistics weren't as powerful as I was expecting. Even against a Gladius and helped by his wingmates, it took at least 6 volleys from the turret to destroy it. And it was at least 10 volleys to destroy a Cutlass -- again, with help from wingmates. If a Hurricane can be destroyed by 3-4 shots from dual lasers, but it takes 6+ volleys from its quad S3 ballistics to take out a light fighter, I fail to see the point of the Hurricane "heavy" fighter. I thought the idea was that it could punch above its weight class and take down larger ships, while shredding enemy fighters. But these combat tests indicate that the Hurricane isn't any better on offense than a Super Hornet or Sabre, whereas those fighters are tougher, faster, and agiler. The Hurricane needs a lot of work before it can justify itself. (I'm glad I used by Spring token to buy back my Esperia Blade and not the Hurricane.)
  7. F8 Lightning

    The Hurricane's classification as a "heavy fighter" was controversial precisely because of that. CIG claimed that "heavy" referred to its armaments, not the ship's weight or armour. I never liked that explanation and thought that the Hurricane should have a different classification. Perhaps "Heavy Attack Light Fighter" (HALF). Based on the Hurricane's combat performance in 3.2, it's apparent that the Hurricane paper-thin hull is a serious problem, as demonstrated here: Like @Devil Khan said, the Banu Defender isn't simply a light fighter, it's a long-range escort fighter -- basically a lighter Vanguard Warden. It makes sense for an LR escort fighter to have beds because it can't be dependent on a base ship. (Although I think it would be awesome if two or more Defenders could attach to a Banu Merchantman, similar to how the Constellation carries the P-52 Merlin.) Based on the size of the F8 Lightning, CIG could give it a simple bed behind the cockpit seat, similar to the Aurora's sleeper cabin. However, as I stated earlier, I believe it's a matter of ship balance. If a player flying an F8 could safely log out anywhere in space, they could pull lame game-y tricks, like using the bed-logout ability as a Get Out Of Jail Free card whenever they got stuck in a dangerous situation, like after griefing other players and the heat got too intense or they're in the middle of a mission and they exhaust their ammo and fuel. They could just logout and elude the consequences. Only certain ships should be allowed to logout anywhere. The F8 doesn't seem to have many weaknesses, except for its lack of a bed, so it's vital for ship balance to keep that weakness.
  8. F8 Lightning

    The F8 Lightning is a heavy fighter, not a long-range fighter, like the Vanguard Warden. While the F8 seems comparable in size and internal volume to the Vanguard, I don't believe it has an internal compartment or living quarters, like the Warden. Not even a bed. I suspect that the internal fuselage is filled with components (power plants, shield gens, coolers, avionics, life support, etc.) and protected by heavy armour, which will make the F8 a tough nut to crack. The F8 is a carrier-based fighter, so it wouldn't make sense for it to have a bed or living quarters aboard. Those would add weight to the fighter and occupy space that could be used for weapons and components. It's also important for ship balance that the F8 doesn't have a bed, which would enable players to log out anywhere when flying it. It's a necessary limitation to require players to land the F8 at a spaceport or carrier to log out safely.
  9. Alpha 3.2 is LIVE

    I also noticed that Vanguard BUKs can now be exchanged for UECs instead of refunded for store credit. I wonder if this means that the BUK items won't be available in-game in the future -- presumably when the Sentinel and Harbinger are flyable. EDIT: Correction - I realized that the "Reclaim" button has been replaced by the "Exchange" button for items in My Hangar. I assumed that Exchange was only for VDS items, but Exchange is now used for reclaiming all applicable items. The item will be exchanged for store credit or UECs, depending on how that item was paid for. However, I know the Exchange pop-up message is buggy. VDS items will appear as their $$ value, not their UEC value. But when you submit the exchange, the VDS item is exchanged for UECs. So the Exchange function works correctly on the RSI site, but the pop-up message is incorrect. Hopefully, Turbulent fixes that soon to resolve the confusion.
  10. Alpha 3.2 is LIVE

    It's strange that CIG would announce this on Spectrum instead of an article on the RSI homepage or cover it in AtV. Fortunately, the SC community steps up when CIG drops the ball. Still can't exchange my Combine cannons and RSI Support hasn't replied to my ticket yet. I've heard from others that the Exchange button is missing for their Combine cannons too, so it appears to be a common problem with that weapon in particular. EDIT: @Danakar Endeel is probably right. Those Combines were probably freebies from when I bought 2 Buccaneers, which is presumably why I can't exchange them. So I'm stuck with them. The question is: Do those free Combines appear in your inventory in Alpha 3.2? Because according to other players, NONE of their VDS purchases appear in the PTU anymore. Does the game differentiate between VDS purchases and freebies from the Drake Buccaneer and Referral bonuses?
  11. Alpha 3.2 is LIVE

    Ok. Has CIG officially explained this anywhere? Because the Alpha 3.2 Release announcement page didn't explain any of this, and I don't recall reading this in the 3.2 Release Notes either. What I want to know is if spending aUECs in the PU will affect my UEC Wallet. I'm 99% certain that it won't, but CIG should definitely state that for the record. I mean, how angry would you be if you spent 45,000 aUEC on that Rhino Laser Repeater and your $45 was used up? If I'm understanding this correctly, those of us who bought UEC chits for $$, used UECs to buy items from the VDS store, and exchanged those now-unusable items for UECs: We will start Alpha 3.2 with the equivalent amount of aUECs? (Plus the base 5000 aUEC amount.) And that UEC-to-aUEC amount will be restored after every Alpha Update refresh?
  12. Drake Vulture

    Bad news for Prospector owners: CIG screwed up the design of the Drake Vulture so badly that they might have to nerf the Prospector's cargo capacity to bring it down to the same level. The Prospector's removable saddlebag system gives it 128 SCU of ore capacity, whereas the Vulture only has 12 SCU. Shouldn't CIG have compared the cargo capacities of these two industrial ships during the concept phase, instead of afterward? Apparently, it didn't occur to CIG until someone asked that question. CIG has gotten so sloppy with their concept ship designs, it's disgraceful! Instead of screwing over Prospector owners, why doesn't CIG give the Vulture a removable storage option instead? Like a removable cargo container that slots into the aft hold, which can be ejected and carried away by a cargo hauler, letting the Vulture stay and continue scrapping ships. That's not a brilliant, new idea. The Orion's spinning ore storage pods are supposed to work like that. So CIG ripped off the Dragonfly's design for the Vulture, but they didn't think of using the Orion's ore storage solution? WTF!?! This is terrible timing because the Prospector can finally mine in Alpha 3.2, and now CIG is considering nerfing it. Prospector owners should be justifiably PO'd at CIG and demand they leave the mining ship alone. CIG should work on fixing the Vulture's horrible design, not screwing over Prospector owners.
  13. Aegis Vulcan - Multi Profession 'Starter' Ship

    Another late and unhelpful Q&A from CIG: Q&A: Drake Vulture Why do the Concept Ship Q&A's take 3 weeks now when they originally only took 1 week? Just because CIG has lengthened the Concept Sale period from 1-2 weeks to 4+ weeks, they take their sweet time releasing the Q&A. 4 of the 13 questions were about the Vulture's pitiful 12 SCU of cargo. I understand that was a hot topic, but why was it necessary to burn 3 more questions on that one issue? And some of the answers were basically "see above". So many people harped on the Vulture's limited cargo capacity that CIG acknowledged that they MIGHT increase the Vulture's limited cargo capacity during the ship development phase. But they also admitted that, instead, they might reduce the Prospector's cargo capacity, to bring down to the Vulture's level, so it isn't so superior. So CIG might nerf Prospector because they screwed up the Vulture's design. CIG also admitted that the Vulture was originally intended to focus on salvaging ship components, but they changed to design to focus on scrapping instead, which is why the Vulture has those ugly pontoons and the "scraper beams" to digest ships, which the massive Reclaimer salvage ship inexplicably doesn't have. That's a bullshit explanation because salvaging components seems like a complete afterthought for the Vulture, which requires the pilot to go EVA, use a handheld multi-tool to manually remove a component, and carry it back to the Vulture. That's something that any ship with a cargo hold can do! A Cutlass Black can do that, arguably better, because it has 46 SCU of cargo, a tractor beam to pull items into the cargo hold, and is a multi-crew ship, so someone can fly the ship, one or more people can go EVA to retrieve components, and one can operate the tractor beam. IMO, if you want to SALVAGE instead of scrap, you should just get a Cutlass Black, which is also cheaper than the Vulture! It goes without saying that I'm not a fan of the Vulture. I think it's the worth designed ship that CIG has ever released, both from aesthetic and technical aspects. And even if I ignore the EVE Venture rip-off controversy, the Vulture still looks like a super-sized Drake Dragonfly, so it's unbearably derivative. I suppose it's good that CIG released the Reclaimer as the first dedicated salvage ship because if they introduced the salvaging profession using the Vulture I don't think anyone would've been interested in it. If anything, CIG should rebrand the Vulture as being a dedicated scrapper ship, not a salvage ship. I think CIG should work on a salvage variant model of the Cutlass instead, which would have robotic arms and cutting lasers, which would enable it to salvage components from derelict ships without requiring the crew to EVA.
  14. I remember that "promise" too, but that was before CIG decided to make Warbond-only-LTI for concept ship sales. My guess is that CIG wants to encourage backers to buy the Warbond-12-month Eclipse for $275, which is why haven't increased the price to $325, yet. Although that doesn't explain why they didn't make the store credit price $325 -- to encourage backers to buy the warbond instead. I don't think we can rely on CIG abiding by their "promises" anymore. In this one (rare) instance, it sorta works in backers' favour. But most of them time backers are getting ripped off by CIG's increasingly greedy and manipulative pricing practices.
  15. Alpha 3.2 is LIVE

    No reply from Concierge yet, but Law posted this informative video about the VDS closure and how to get your VDS purchases refunded: I've refunded most of my VDS purchases, but I'm having trouble with two Combine cannons because the Exchange button is missing for them. I wonder if the VDS items could be exchanged since the weekend, or if CIG turned on the Exchange button today? Because I checked on the weekend, but since the Combine cannons were at the top of my Weapon-filter list, the Exchange button was missing. The Exchange button could've been there for the other weapons, but I didn't check them all. Regardless, I've submitted a ticket to Concierge about exchanging the two Combine cannons -- I never liked them anyway! After exchanging my VDS weapons, I'm rolling in UECs now. I didn't realize how much I spent on weapons over the past 3+ years. I didn't hesitate to exchange most of them because the weapons were redundant (i.e. 2 Panthers, 2 Omnisky VI's, missile racks) or the weapons sucked (i.e. Spark missiles, GT-870s, and those 2 Combines). But there were some weapons I'm holding on to for now: 2 Mantis gatling guns and Tempest missiles. Those are my faves and I'm hesitant to exchange them, just in case CIG changes their mind about VDS purchases. I'm wondering what this means for Alpha UECs? Does my UEC Wallet increase my starting aUEC amount? Or do only the Starting UECs from my game packages affect my base aUEC after each Alpha reset?
×