faquarl25

I like the fact that they are making military ships a lot tougher... but landing that many torpedos in a normal situation would be tough... is there still a place for the retaliator?

My only question is how it will stack up compared to the gladius... especially since it is less expensive.

I like the theory crafting. My only question is what resource would having 109 people for one ship be worth it? Basically, if the orion would have say, a max of 15 crew, I feel like an escort of 2 retaliators with 4 light fighters or one hammerhead and 4 heavy fighters/light bombers and just multiple convoys would be more worth it as you would be able to stop 98% of threats (since the vast majority of times pirates are looking for easy prey). This means that WAY more material could be moved. Now formations like that would be useful for attacking hardened targets, but convoys are supposed to avoid them. Even if an idris was been preying on them, an idris pilot would be hesitant to attack a force with gladiators or retaliators and if they do attack it, whatever, 3 others made it through and the idris needs 10-24 hours of repairs, meaning more successful convoys. In addition, when one convoy is attacked, forces can be pulled off one to help another.

Totally agree. But Toyota has looked the other way at those exploiting the second-hand market for their trucks as technicals. So I would include the buccaneer. For the Kraken, I would agree its marketed as a mobile "refit and repair" that might be able to mount a few turrets. I really believe CIG will make this simply because they are faced with a significant problem right now. They can't give NPC pirates idrises because that would break the lore. So, they instead give the pirates their version. It also gives them a way to make missions for all the OP large ships that they have been making this year (remember, emergent gameplay is just one feature for these ships).

While the community has seemingly supported n3 most extensively at this point (not surprising due to the widespread love of "pocket carriers"), I would strongly suggest going for either 1 or 2, since that class needs a lot more ships and there isn't much of a reason other than fun for number 3 to be present in game.

My point is that the Polaris makes significant comprises in order to have the hangar. It could be much smaller, faster, and maneuverable if it didn't need to have it. I like the comparison to the littoral ships, especially the US ones which also tried to do everything and now are excellent at nothing.

I would disagree. The retaliator is not rendered obsolete by the Polaris. If anything, it is the other way around. The retaliator, which is smaller, and far less expensive, delivers a comparable (though slightly smaller) payload. This means that in most engagements, people will be able to deploy more retaliators than Polari(?, not sure on plural here). I personally don't see why one would ever use a Polaris instead of of one or two retaliators. The redeemer was supposed to be far smaller, meaning that it should not be placed in comparison to the hammerhead.

Did anyone catch CR's statement in the latest Aegis ATV? He mentioned that the sabre is a common site on the "front lines". Wasn't the point of the ship that the UEE did not want it so they were releasing it to the public? Did I get something wrong? If so, does this mean the UEE now buys it? What is the rationale for selling to civilians?

This is what I was hoping the Polaris would be. Instead, we got a ship that didn't know its role. The Polaris doesn't know if it wants to be a carrier, bomber, or gunship, sacrificing all of these roles for a little of each. It was clearly designed for small orgs to operate from or (in universe speak) militias to operate C&C off of with a little combat. I will be disappointed if we see a lot of polarizes in the UEE fleet because they simply don't fill a needed role (the military already has a bomber, a small carrier, and has more C&C than anyone would know what do do with). The Hammerhead on the other hand... WOW. This is clearly NOT a capital ship or a command ship. It is a large support craft. However, it knows its role. The UEE desperately needed a picket ship and here it is. We get a working gunship (Were any of TNGS ships like the hammerhead?) that will make sense both in civilian AND UEE navy hands. I think this going to be my favorite military ship released since I backed and a really wish I could buy one. Anyone need crew :). Lastly, I would not be surprised if it gets nerfed (and rightfully so) down to quad size 3s on the turrets. Even those would tear through ships. @Reavern I loved your breakdown about pirates, and I would love to agree with you. However, I am being cautious. One of the issues that I have with this is LTI. While I do have LTI ships, I dislike the concept as it downplays risk. How will pirates get punished if they have LTI? Will they lose it if their wanted level goes high enough? Because nearly all of the large ships have LTI. While I am sorry that I cannot afford it, my wallet is happy that it doesn't need to be assaulted any more than normal.

So, is synthworld actually a trap?

I agree with a lot of this, but I don't see F7A Upgrades really being found around that much. As far as I can tell, CIG needs to make sure that at least some AI pilots can wreck like 90% of the player base. The F7A upgrades stops players from shrugging off UEE response, making them a proper threat. I also think this is where the glades upgrade is from (also the fact that they need to balance gladius vs Buccaneer). While the F7A is no F8, it still provides a healthy advantage for the UEE that put the civilian armaments in perspective (I expect the UEE Capital ships (Javelin, Idris, Polaris) to be up gunned from our versions as well).

You will get what you spent on the ship+any applied upgrades. You can't game the systems for more credits, I tried as well. You can however, use the new value of the target ship to ccu to other more expensive ships.

I really like that they are doing this, but I feel like it need more explanation. Even Ship Mass says: "Origin ships use more advanced lightweight materials that retain strength rather than the traditional stalwarts like Aegis and Anvil with heavier metals" Does origins materials not stand up to punishment? Or is it just flat out better (suspicious, since everything should have trade offs) And: "Xi’an ships are renowned for their materials and are significantly lighter than human counterparts" - Ditto to above. I feel like alien=better is an old played out trope so that would be annoying if true.

I agree with this, especially since deck layouts are critical to sortie numbers and rearming turn arounds. I think people are underestimating how much the Idris is going to be used just as a rearming platform. If I develop a way to rearm craft faster then the next guy and train with my crew to execute it, I should be able to implement it, at least in my opinion.

I think it would be a cool idea to make players put all (or at least most) power to engines to be able to quantum jump. Do you think this would be a cool feature to stop people from running away and help ambushers? Would it be balanced? I want to know your opinions.

Not BMW. the last thing I want to be constantly cut off by space BMWs. I have enough problems already.

Yeah, asking about how orgs will fight over/claim territory (as in stations) would be nice.

So will the derelicts be owned by an insurance company? Or are we to assume that the NPCs did not have insurance. Or does insurance not work that way in Star Citizen (I think it would be way cooler if it did)? I know that having an in game court system would be excessive, but that is what salvage is really all about. Salvaging something and then defending your claim. If not whatever. Just thought it would be a cool way to show people the right direction to the wrecks and make actual jobs in the job board by having insurance companies pay you (or you buy the wreck+location from the insurance company). Lastly, I was saying that shooting might be excessive in response to "seeing that the other person stole your stuff". While in my ship, I see no problem defending myself. If a get pickpockets/robbed (not armed) at the bar, it hardly seems to be a justifiable plan to track down the guy, find him with your stuff, and then just shoot him.

Why would they just spawn loot? I thought the entire idea for the PU(not 3.0) was not to have gamey features like this but base it on the actual economy? Has this changed and they will now have a planned economy? because that would destroy entire sections of the game (they would be doing this by stating the minimum amount that can be salvaged. Lethal force seems excessive on say... Terra. While in some systems this would work, in heavily policed systems, not so much. Not saying that this won't be a component, just seems a little to vigilante for earth and terra

I agree they need a way of dealing with intruders, especially since the UEE seems to follow Texas law when it comes to personal weaponry and ROE. However, I disagree with the idea of tons of "universe loot" floating around. As we can see with modern shipping, if someone gets paid for the loss, its the insurance companies' property and therefore they own the rights. I think, at least in UEE systems, insurance companies should be the ones that spawn missions to salvage something. Otherwise, it IS piracy. This would differentiate between pirates outfits who have one person blow the stuff up and have another person salvage it, collecting the goods and being able to fence them without risk or loss of value. However, this obviously need some limits. Perhaps, after a period of time (I would advocate for longer, rather than shorter, to stymie pirates), if no one takes the job, then, and only then, will the wreck become unclaimed. This, to me, seems like common sense since a whole set of laws has been built around this in the real world.

Love it and would love to buy it. Its just a little to much $$$ for me to really give right now. I guess I will have to be content with upgrading to a cutlass black or maybe a prospector. BTW, did they say anything about salvaging wrecks on the ground? Being on a mission when another player comes down in one of these and starts harvesting the wreck your in? Now that's gameplay.

Why do you think they grabbed a rifle at the citizen con demo, its the only sensible choice for these massive planets. Otherwise, this ship is just a racing curiosity. The lack of cargo is punishment enough (and inability to be able to be secured in ships smaller than the DF).

I am thinking that the Nox beats the dragonfly in combat (with a skilled pilot who doesn't flip), style, and speed. The Dragonfly wins for exploring and $$.

Just a few questions to make me decide what I want to buy. If any of you could answer some/all of these I would be very grateful. I understand that the DF and the Nox are meant for different purposes. I am just trying to clarify what those are exactly. I would like to say that I have no desire to race, but pvp usability does matter to me. 1. From what I understand, both can be used for planetary exploration. However, the Nox can only carry a single person while the DF can carry 2. Is this correct? 2. I understand that the dragonfly can carry cargo, does anyone know how much? Can the box carry any cargo? From what I remember, the dragonfly can get a trailer, can the nox? 3. How much smaller is the Nox? I have no desire for swarms, but sweeping onto small ships has advantages. From what I understand, the dragonfly cannot be deployed from anything smaller than a cutlass. Can the Nox be deployed from smaller vehicles? 4. When will the nox be complete? will it be in 3.0 or will have to wait for 3.1/2/3? 5. Lastly, I would like to ask about their usability on the ground. The way the DF is set up, it can land even on very rocky terrain, can the Nox? will the box be limited to flatter areas? Lastly, a question about having a second person. Have they stated how powerful the handheld railgun will be? Will it have sub size 1 mass driver power? Or will they make it as powerful as like a size 2 mass driver but with limited shots? This will directly impact the usefulness of a dragonfly, which paints a much larger and less maneuverable target. Sorry for the long post.

Could a nox fit a reliant?