Jump to content


Imperium Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Feedback


574rbuck last won the day on August 26 2013

574rbuck had the most liked content!


About 574rbuck

  • Birthday 01/01/1980

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

1,845 profile views

574rbuck's Achievements

  1. Did you check out the Hornet brochure? Go to page 17, "Components & Features". There you will find the "Universal Upfitters Model K Canard Turret", which is listed as "Optional" for all Hornet models. So the Super Hornet will not have it by default, but you should easily be able to retrofit it by yourself.
  2. Same goes for the Xi'An Scout: Source
  3. I had the same problem. I you don't want do download 20+ GB again, then you can try deleting the following three files in your SC directory: laucher.version client_release.version data.version Then just restart the launcher. No guarantee, but it's worth trying. Worked for me.
  4. 574rbuck

    M50 vs. 350r

    Well, that's the post I got the information from that the M50 stats changed. So I did read that. And that is exactly the reason why I think that the whole stat thing is completely volatile. And the thruster rating is just one example of that. Can anyone tell me what those thruster ratings actually mean? Apparently they are not really a good indication of top speed and acceleration, otherwise a Twin-TR2 ship would not be able to beat a Twin-TR4 ship. So how are these ratings supposed to be interpreted? Why would I want TR4s over TR2s? My guess is that CIG doesn't really know that yet, either. And that's why I don't trust any of those stats. As they have written in that ships stats change post, for many of those stats they don't even have game mechanics yet. Until then, those stats are pure theory. And in some cases not even extremely well thought-out theory. So I really only see those stats as a very rough indication of a ship's potential.
  5. 574rbuck

    M50 vs. 350r

    Funny how things can change: Not long ago, the 350r had Twin-TR3 thrusters, while the M50 had Twin-TR4s. Meanwhile, the 350r has Twin-TR4s, while the M50 has Twin-TR2s. If you look at the stats of both ships now, it's hard to find any advantages of the M50. Except its size maybe. Anyway, I'm still gonna keep my M50. I don't trust any of those stats until 2 years after PU launch...
  6. Most disappointing piece of information for me: CONCEPT phase! In other words: No one even started to implement Orgs 2.0. In fact, they don't even know what to implement, yet!
  7. I find it hard to make it through an 10FTC episode, too, but for different reasons. I don't have any issues with Chris' voice or accent, it's just that I can't remember any relevant, new information in any episode. At least not relevant for someone who has been following the game for quite a while. In addition, I have to admit that in my opinion, Chris' answers would benefit from some more conciseness. Each time a backer asks a question like "Will we have a feature like XYZ in the game?" I am hoping for an answer like "No. Next question.". Personally, I don't need a 4-minute-justification why this particular feature might not be included in the initial release for each of those questions...
  8. Okay, I think it's fine that we disagree about this. I still think the Pay2Win debate is meaningless, because it is as old as Star Citizen itself, it has been there from day one. We've reached $51 Million in less than 2 years anyway. And it doesn't matter too much if people, who do not like games where you can spend money for getting an advantage, call SC Pay2Win or whatever. As I said, these people won't like SC anyway. People like you and me however, who support the game, actually like paying money for getting an advantage in the game. That's where the money comes from. That's why I see no harm in people crying about Pay2Win. Are you serious? Ambiguity does not exist? For each term in the English language there is only one single definition and one cannot deviate from that? When's the last time you actually had a look in a dictionary? And in which dictionary would I have to look for the correct definition of Pay2Win? Of course it is a definition. And it is one that is pretty widespread among gamers. It's just not your definition, and apparently you do not like that definition. That doesn't mean that it is less legitimate than yours though. (nice try, but you need to employ less obvious tactics than devaluating a point that doesn't fit your opinion if you want to convince me, buddy... )
  9. VoA, you're completely missing my point. I just gave you two definitions that are very wide spread among the gaming community, and I tried to explain that in my opinion, there is no single, officially recognized definition of Pay2Win that everyone has to accept. In your post, you are giving your definition of Pay2Win, which is basically my definition no. 1. However, that's still just your definition (and Chris Roberts', and that of many other people), but it's not the one and only valid definition. There are other definitions, for example definition 2 (see my last post). That means there are people out there, who are uncomfortable with games, where you can buy an advantage with money. And where is the problem with that? These people will probably not be happy with SC, because you will be able to buy advantages in SC. So what's the point in convincing these people that their definition of Pay2Win is "wrong"? They are still uncomfortable with games where you can spend money on anything else than cosmetic items. So the whole Pay2Win discussion is pointless, really.
  10. Is Star Citizen Pay2Win? Each time I see a new thread about this I am irritated. Because the issue is actually really straightforward. The problem is: As long as you do not have a generally accepted definition of what Pay2Win exactly is, you obviously cannot answer this question, you can only exchange your opinions about it. And that mostly ends in very heated debates. So the actual question is: What does Pay2Win mean? In my perception, there are basically two different factions here: 1) For many people a game is Pay2Win if you can buy items or advantages in the game with money, which you cannot earn without paying that money. Chris Roberts adopts this definition. 2) Other people have a tighter definition: For them, a game is Pay2Win if you are able to gain any advantage (other than cosmetic items) by spending money in the game. I think both are legitimate definitions of Pay2Win. There is no right or wrong here. If you adopt definition 1, SC obviously is not Pay2Win. If you adopt definition 2, SC obvioulsy is Pay2Win. So I disapprove of the idea that people have to be evangelised that SC is not Pay2Win, because that only means convincing them that "your" defintion of Pay2Win is the "correct" one. If in their perception SC is Pay2Win and thus they decide not to support the game, that's fine for me. Who cares? We've got $51 Million, and we'll reach $100 Million, no matter how many people whine about Pay2Win.
  11. That is what I was referring to as technical overview of the Phoenix. Sorry, I may not have been clear with my wording. The ship specs don't show it, as BravoTwoZero pointed out correctly.
  12. I'm not sure if the class 9 point-defence battery has ever been mentioned in the ship specs. The hardpoint list only goes up to 8 there. However, the class 9 hardpoint, including a point-defence gun, is still mentioned in the technical overview of the Phoenix, In addition, the automated defense battery is marked in the illustration of the the Phoenix on page 14 in the brochure, and it is listed on page 15 of the brochure. Admittedly, it is missing on page 13. That's an inconsistency within the brochure. That again matches the inconsistency on the website. So at least the inconsistencies are consistent. Anyway, I think the Constellation stats are still messed up. It looks like a quick fix of the ship specs page done by Turbulent over the weekend, based on the assumption that the brochures are correct. I'm not convinced that this is a valid assumption. I guess we'll get a more reliable clarification at the beginning of this week. The outrage about the stat changes has probably already begun on the RSI forums...
  13. Yes, Sandi wanted to congratulate German backers (soccer world championship), but she unintentionally used the "wrong" stanza of the national anthem, which was the national anthem of Nazi Germany (1933-1945). She feels terrible about that and now they are cutting out that part.... [source]
  14. I'd say it is probably just as obsolete as a F7M Hornet or an Avenger. So I wouldn't worry about that too much....
  15. Connie base Connie luxury Connie weapons Connie freight Connie exploration Connie command & control Connie hospital Connie repair Connie salvage Connie bounty hunting Connie troop transport Connie mining Connie stealth Connie science Connie high speed Connie vintage mk1 = 16
  • Create New...