Jump to content
GRIZZ

The Shipyard Series - Engineering articles leading up to New Ship Matrix

Recommended Posts

The Shipyard Series

SHIP MASS

CAREERS AND ROLES

THRUSTERS

SHIP TECHNICAL INFORMATION

ORDNANCE HARDPOINTS

WEAPON HARDPOINTS

OTHER HARDPOINTS

TURRETS

VARIANTS & MODULES

SCU AND CARGO

 

I'm excited for this series for many reasons.  The mechwarrior fan in me is very excited to start seeing how ship customization is coming along as we are moving from Design Docs and into documentation on how it's currently implemented.  Also the ship repair fan in me is very focused on ship components as I feel the largest role I look forward to playing will be efficiently getting modules back into operation during battles.

 

Starting with the Careers and Roles doc, it's light on new info for a veteran, but a killer starting point for new players interested in starting the game.  I'm happy to see Support ships separate from Industrial ships.  I feel a lot of players clump them together.  Also interesting is how luxury touring falls under exploration.  It makes sense, I just never thought about it I guess.  Pathfinder is a neat new subcategory 

ShipRoles.JPG.3c6e81b307f851932f774a75d9454a82.JPG  Pathfinder.thumb.jpg.2a81927637a9aa73f17fe1b4092fd240.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am looking forward to seeing this come together!  Lots of valuable information to be gained here.  are you pulling these categories from the RSI website?

Pathfinder is a great label for that particular role.  It is what most of our exploration-inspired pilots want to do; travel to vast unknown worlds, chart Jump Points, discover new secrets while surrounded by hostility and risking their lives to scout ahead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Rocket Man said:

I am looking forward to seeing this come together!  Lots of valuable information to be gained here.  are you pulling these categories from the RSI website?

Pathfinder is a great label for that particular role.  It is what most of our exploration-inspired pilots want to do; travel to vast unknown worlds, chart Jump Points, discover new secrets while surrounded by hostility and risking their lives to scout ahead.

Except for my 2 paragraphs of comments in the O.P., everything else came from the RSI site.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just updated the link for ordinance.  I'm excited to see forward movement on a selection of Rocket pods replacing our old dumbfire missiles.

This will be full of awesomeness.

HRST_all.jpg

 

http://giant.gfycat.com/GracefulHealthyAnnelid.gif

 

Quote

Any turret can be controlled via an NPC acting as player, but AI or Autonomous Control is a separate function requiring a blade to be added to your computer item (formerly Avionics Module).

Turret write up is up and really clears things up about AI turrets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say that I'm disappointed by the all these articles related to the updated Ship Specs page. There's virtually no NEW information, the articles don't adequately explain what has changed (or why), and some of the information is confusing. For example, I don't understand WTF the new Weapon Slots icons mean.

Super_all.jpg

The Super Hornet's Weapons indicate a S3 slot with 2 weapons per mount. I presume these are the wing hardpoints, because they're not turrets. But the wing hardpoints are S4 in the old Ship Specs. Is the SH getting nerfed!?! Why are the wing hardpoints represented by a single icon instead of two? I understand why the Turrets slots are grouped together, but there's no reason why Weapons slots are paired. It's just confusing.

The Missiles slots are even more confusing. The first Miisile slot is Size 2 and somehow they can equip 2 x S2 missiles? How is that possible? That contradicts the current missile rack system wherein a S2 hardpoint is required to carry 2 x S1 missiles. To carry 2 x S2 missiles, the slot would have to be S3, which is why the second Missile slot is correct: S3 hardpoint, 2 x S2 missiles. That makes sense.

Although, the Total Mounts would be variable because of the different missile racks available. I suppose it's acceptable for the Spec to indicate the SH's factory missile racks, but the article doesn't explain that. And we all know that ambiguity just leads to wanton speculation and controversy. CIG needs to do a better job of explaining everything thoroughly instead of these cursory descriptions that just provoke more questions.

I also found problems with the Ordinance Hardpoints page. In a Ship Type / Missile / Torpedoes table, it lists which ships carry missiles and which ships carry torpedoes. The Vanguard Harbinger carries both missiles and torpedoes. But the Gladiator should be able to carry missiles in addition to 4 x S5 torpedoes. Has CIG/Turbulent screwed up the Stats page already!?! They're so sloppy!

 

Updating the Ship Stats page is long overdue and I appreciate that CIG is posting these articles, but they are far from perfect. I sorta understand that CIG doesn't want to write huge manuals that casual players won't read, or might scare away potential new backers, but they need to provide more information than this. They should have concise descriptions up front and expandable sections that can be clicked on to reveal detailed explanations of each topic, which should cover all the bases.

Most importantly, the information needs to be CORRECT and ACCURATE. If there's anything incorrect or confusing, CIG needs to FIX IT IMMEDIATELY because if they ignore it, like all the mistakes on the Ship Specs page, it will cause confusion and undermine everything they're trying to do by updating the Ship Specs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anyone notice that any turret can now be become a PDS turret and that PDS turrets (like the one on the Phoenix) now become a regular turret? 

I don't know whether to be happy or pissed. It removes a key perk from the phoenix (being the only smallish ship with a PDS) but also added a potential one by giving it a rear remote turret. 

I could also be reading too much into it but at one point they state there are no mission specific ships and you can do any mission in any ship (does this mean you can do VIP transport in any ship now and not just the Phoenix/890?). If this is the case then the Phoenix loses most of its appeal.

I wonder also whether the Connies will get a workover for ordnance hardpoints and more Blade capability than other ships. I still feel that the connies have been immensely nerfed/misrepresented since their introduction during the kickstarter. I really hope that they will regain some of their multirole/air superiority design because the ship really needs some lovin'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Reavern said:

I have to say that I'm disappointed by the all these articles related to the updated Ship Specs page. There's virtually no NEW information, the articles don't adequately explain what has changed (or why), and some of the information is confusing. For example, I don't understand WTF the new Weapon Slots icons mean.

Super_all.jpg

The Super Hornet's Weapons indicate a S3 slot with 2 weapons per mount. I presume these are the wing hardpoints, because they're not turrets. But the wing hardpoints are S4 in the old Ship Specs. Is the SH getting nerfed!?! Why are the wing hardpoints represented by a single icon instead of two? I understand why the Turrets slots are grouped together, but there's no reason why Weapons slots are paired. It's just confusing.

 

Uhm the wing slots have always been able to house max S3 weapons as far as I remember.

 

8 hours ago, Reavern said:

The Missiles slots are even more confusing. The first Miisile slot is Size 2 and somehow they can equip 2 x S2 missiles? How is that possible? That contradicts the current missile rack system wherein a S2 hardpoint is required to carry 2 x S1 missiles. To carry 2 x S2 missiles, the slot would have to be S3, which is why the second Missile slot is correct: S3 hardpoint, 2 x S2 missiles. That makes sense.

Although, the Total Mounts would be variable because of the different missile racks available. I suppose it's acceptable for the Spec to indicate the SH's factory missile racks, but the article doesn't explain that. And we all know that ambiguity just leads to wanton speculation and controversy. CIG needs to do a better job of explaining everything thoroughly instead of these cursory descriptions that just provoke more questions.

I also found problems with the Ordinance Hardpoints page. In a Ship Type / Missile / Torpedoes table, it lists which ships carry missiles and which ships carry torpedoes. The Vanguard Harbinger carries both missiles and torpedoes. But the Gladiator should be able to carry missiles in addition to 4 x S5 torpedoes. Has CIG/Turbulent screwed up the Stats page already!?! They're so sloppy!

I believe the confusion comes from clinging to the previous turret sizes rules ( which they said they're ditching): the Hornet doesn't have a S2 missile hardpont, it has a missile hardpoint that can house 2xS2 missiles and then go from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Reavern said:

I have to say that I'm disappointed by the all these articles related to the updated Ship Specs page. There's virtually no NEW information, the articles don't adequately explain what has changed (or why), and some of the information is confusing. For example, I don't understand WTF the new Weapon Slots icons mean.

Super_all.jpg

The Super Hornet's Weapons indicate a S3 slot with 2 weapons per mount. I presume these are the wing hardpoints, because they're not turrets. But the wing hardpoints are S4 in the old Ship Specs. Is the SH getting nerfed!?! Why are the wing hardpoints represented by a single icon instead of two? I understand why the Turrets slots are grouped together, but there's no reason why Weapons slots are paired. It's just confusing.

The Missiles slots are even more confusing. The first Miisile slot is Size 2 and somehow they can equip 2 x S2 missiles? How is that possible? That contradicts the current missile rack system wherein a S2 hardpoint is required to carry 2 x S1 missiles. To carry 2 x S2 missiles, the slot would have to be S3, which is why the second Missile slot is correct: S3 hardpoint, 2 x S2 missiles. That makes sense.

Although, the Total Mounts would be variable because of the different missile racks available. I suppose it's acceptable for the Spec to indicate the SH's factory missile racks, but the article doesn't explain that. And we all know that ambiguity just leads to wanton speculation and controversy. CIG needs to do a better job of explaining everything thoroughly instead of these cursory descriptions that just provoke more questions.

I also found problems with the Ordinance Hardpoints page. In a Ship Type / Missile / Torpedoes table, it lists which ships carry missiles and which ships carry torpedoes. The Vanguard Harbinger carries both missiles and torpedoes. But the Gladiator should be able to carry missiles in addition to 4 x S5 torpedoes. Has CIG/Turbulent screwed up the Stats page already!?! They're so sloppy!

 

Updating the Ship Stats page is long overdue and I appreciate that CIG is posting these articles, but they are far from perfect. I sorta understand that CIG doesn't want to write huge manuals that casual players won't read, or might scare away potential new backers, but they need to provide more information than this. They should have concise descriptions up front and expandable sections that can be clicked on to reveal detailed explanations of each topic, which should cover all the bases.

Most importantly, the information needs to be CORRECT and ACCURATE. If there's anything incorrect or confusing, CIG needs to FIX IT IMMEDIATELY because if they ignore it, like all the mistakes on the Ship Specs page, it will cause confusion and undermine everything they're trying to do by updating the Ship Specs.

Pardon me please for being obtuse, but where exactly do you see that page? The one I'm looking at on the RSI website looks decidedly different - old, unchanged, with only two tabs ("Technical Overview" and "Holo Viewer"). Is that much-touted "new" ship matrix even out already at all? The daily articles don't seem to say either way...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Riley Egret said:

Uhm the wing slots have always been able to house max S3 weapons as far as I remember.

No, the Hornet's wing hardpoints were originally S4 because they could mount gimballed Mantis GT-220 gatlings, which are S3. If you check the current Ship Stats page, all the Hornets have 2 x S4s in the Gimbal section. But that's a mistake. I remember now that CIG already nerfed the Hornets a while back.

Regardless, it doesn't make sense why the two wing hardpoints are represented by a single icon. In the current Technical Overview graphic for the Super Hornet, there are two icons for each wing hardpoint (incorrectly S4). The way the wing hardpoints should be depicted in the new Tech graphic is with two icons, each with a large S3 in the bottom with a smaller S2 in the upper diamond.

It's okay that the turrets are depicted with a single icon because, as it's explained, turrets are now their own weapon slot type.

11 hours ago, Riley Egret said:

I believe the confusion comes from clinging to the previous turret sizes rules ( which they said they're ditching): the Hornet doesn't have a S2 missile hardpont, it has a missile hardpoint that can house 2xS2 missiles and then go from there.

That doesn't make sense because the new icons show the pylon size at the bottom, the size of the missiles in the upper diamond, and the number of missiles mounted in the small circle. If the pylon size doesn't matter anymore, why is the number in the bottom? It should just indicate that pylon has 2 x S2 missile mounted.

Like I said, it's confusing and probably incorrect. CIG didn't provide a sufficient explanation. What's the point in overhauling the Ship Stats if CIG just makes the same stupid mistakes?

1 hour ago, Porcupine said:

Pardon me please for being obtuse, but where exactly do you see that page? The one I'm looking at on the RSI website looks decidedly different - old, unchanged, with only two tabs ("Technical Overview" and "Holo Viewer"). Is that much-touted "new" ship matrix even out already at all? The daily articles don't seem to say either way...

It's part of the "A Guide to the New Ship Matrix: Weapon Hardpoints"

The new Ship Stats page isn't up yet. Supposedly it will launch this Friday during the CitizenCon event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Reavern said:

I remember now that CIG already nerfed the Hornets a while back.

Yes, the weapon sizes used to be a size 4. (There were no size 4 weapons though, and the nerf was just to gimbal pilots). Those were days, ships had half as many hit points too.   Today,  I am concerned about the nose canard myself. Now that it is a turret mount, will it still be able to mount a size 3?  Will a fixed mount be available?

Sounds like some mounts should still be Turret/gun. The canard puts out about 80% of the damage of the size 3. It is close. 

I love the idea about sub slots though!  Makes extended missions more interesting, and gives an advantage to fighting vessels that have more than one crew and internal spaces, like the vanguard. "Tony, get out of the turret and switch the weapon coolers!"

 

Edit: I still dont get the new system of hard point icons. According to the new graph the hornet should have size 2 weapons on the cannard and size 3 on the ball. That sounds a wee bit to powerful. I mean I would take it though...yep.  I would complain about all the ships I could not justify flying, though...'cause whiners gotta whine and all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, faquarl25 said:

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. 

Ok, I dont think anyone can answer that except time, but hopefully this will help clear it up a little with a current example. So far Origin ships are more lightly armored than anvil ones.  The Origin 325a allows 75% of kinetic damage to pass to components, the same as Aurora Lorica armor.  The Super hornet only allows 65% to pass through, and is currently the best in the game. I think you could consider Origin to be good, expensive and lightweight..but not necessarily the best for what purpose you want.  Surely things will change in 3.0, but I think what they have done so far is indicative of what their grand intentions are.

 

Xian likely along the same lines. A lower mass and less armor.  Both are great for racing, if you can afford it, but less desirable perhaps for utilitarian or military roles. This seems in line with the Xian scout and the Nox.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this now mean that all thrusters are ship dependent? You cannot swap tr3 thrusters from one of your ship models to another model that also uses tr3? At least that's how I read it when they decouple tr ratings from the actual thruster installed because it takes too much work to fit uniform thrusters into the models. 

That's a real pitty because we could cycle thrusters between our ships in the old system (or at least that was the original plan I think. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Booster Terrik I think the thrusters are chassis dependent. You could take racing thrusters off a omega, and place them on the delta for example. But you cant put hornet thrusters and place them on your delta.  I am actually very thankful they are going this way, it seems like an easier system to implement...usually they are choosing the hard road for more realism...and every time they do I feel the release date getting further and further away.

There will be racing, industrial, civilian and mil spec grades for thrusters. Which means there may be even more diversity in loads, even if you cant see cutlass thrusters on a freelancer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

What About All the Other Things like Buk’s or Loadout Changes?

One of the more confusing and often queried systems was the Battlefield Upgrade Kit or “BUK” that was announced alongside the Vanguard and its variants. The BUK system was theoretically designed to make it easy to swap between the 3 versions but for a variety of reasons wasn’t clearly explained and understood and as such we’ve simplified it:

For each BUK owned this will be converted into a combo pack of the relevant Module (to fit the center room) and the relevant items (nose, turret etc) to go with that system.

No more BUK’s will be offered going forward, only these combo packs.

The Vanguard Sentinel and Harbinger are variants of the Vanguard warden as they contain exterior geometry differences, alongside different hardpoints.

The Vanguard Hoplite is a variant of the Vanguard Warden and does not have a Module hardpoint inside to take any of the other three items, it can still mount the nose and turret items from other vanguards however.

So if you got one vanguard and 2 BUK's you might be sad to hear your hull will not change when applying the "Combo Pack" (formarly BUK). So if you have a warden, and apply the harbinger Combo Pack, you do not get the additional armor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, GRIZZ said:

So if you got one vanguard and 2 BUK's you might be sad to hear your hull will not change when applying the "Combo Pack" (formarly BUK). So if you have a warden, and apply the harbinger Combo Pack, you do not get the additional armor.

Actually Ben made this clear when the Vanguard sale was originally out (and I think I even added it to the thread) - that's why I got the Harbinger as my base Vanguard and got the Sentinel BUK

I wanted to make sure I had the armor ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By Dwenos
      I posted this to the RSI forums:  https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/7/thread/localized-physical-inventory-system-impact.  I am also posting here to gather comments from Imperium members.
      According to the road map (as updated 21 Sep 2018), with Alpha 3.6.0 in Q2 of 2019 will come a localized physical inventory system. I’ve not seen any solid information on this, but from the name I deduce that we will no longer be able to access a global inventory through our Mobiglas Equipment Manager. In other words, Equipment Manager will no longer access everything we own, only those items which are in proximity to us. If my deduction is correct, this is a great improvement; the current global inventory access is convenient but not at all realistic. But it also raises a concern: after this is implemented, where can we store personal gear where we can access it while performing missions or simply traveling the ‘verse? And where can we store items that we purchase?

      In certain situations it may be advisable to not wear armor or openly carry weapons (for example, if a mission requires us to make contact with an informant in a high-class restaurant and we wish to remain discreet and inconspicuous). We will need someplace to store it. Same with weapons, additional ammunition, expendables like medical supplies and grenades, mission items (i.e. “deliver the sealed suitcase to Dunraven in the Chairman’s Lounge at the Diamond Sands Resort on Green in the Ellis system”), and purchased items. The answer which immediately comes to mind is, we can store such things in our ship. But there’s a problem with this.

      According to the Ship Matrix, there are 60 ships with 0 cargo space. These range from the various "motorcycle" types (X1, Nox, Dragonfly) and smaller wheeled vehicles through most snub fighters and fighters, to medium ships like the Vanguard Warden, Redeemer, and Prowler, and even the Retaliator which is a Large ship! None of these has space to store so much as a small suitcase, although to be fair the Retaliator does have a weapons rack. The lack of even the most limited storage will severely limit the usefulness of many ships.

      In the real world, almost every vehicle has some storage space. Most motorcycles can be equipped with saddle bags. The smallest sports car has at least a tiny trunk and a glove box. This is because most people need space to store things. Of what use is a vehicle if it can’t even fit a small bag of groceries?

      I understand that we'll be able to place items in any unoccupied space, even if it's not designated as cargo space. So, I could just throw some items on the floor inside the 350r and try not to trip over them. But that doesn't help with ships like the X1, Nox, Dragonfly, 85X, and others which have no such space. For example, the 350r has 0 cargo space. That makes it useful for only one role, which is racing. Yes, I know that's its main role, but in the real world even race cars have extra space, even if it's not utilized during a race. Seats, which are usually removed, may be re-installed to give "joy rides" to those who are not racing professionals. And souped-up "muscle cars" have been used for many decades to impress the opposite sex, and to quickly transport illicit goods (bootlegging) and small packages (the Transporter series of films). So, what if I want to use the 350r for something other than racing? As it stands, I really can't.

      I'm not asking for a ship like the 350r to be useful as a freight hauler, but it needs enough space to store a small amount of personal gear of the types previously mentioned. I plan to use mine as a "space sports car" to travel quickly from place to place, in style.

      Let's look at another example, the X1. I seem to recall some mention that a rider couldn't use this vehicle while carrying a long weapon (rifle, shotgun, etc.), not even if the weapon is in the default Star Citizen "stored" location on the character's back. Yet there's no place to store a weapon on the vehicle. Am I supposed to leave my primary weapons behind while riding to a remote location and rely only on a sidearm at my destination?

      Yet another example is the 85X, which is otherwise a very nice “space luxury coup”. It has two side-by-side seats, something I'd love to see in the 300-series; that would allow me to bring a single passenger along for the ride, perhaps the type of stunningly beautiful passenger typically associated with such luxury vehicles. But I digress. Back to the 85X. If I'm cruising the city, seeing the sights while dressed to the nines, where can I store my flight suit and helmet? What if I must travel outside the atmosphere, back to my 890 Jump or elsewhere? Must I do without a helmet HUD during this entire journey? Without protection from the harsh vacuum of space, in case of a hull breach? Be unable to exit my 85X except in a pressurized bay? C'mon, give me at least enough space for a change of clothes!

      I understand that modeling even a small saddlebag or trunk is not practical for ships that have already been designed. But is it not possible to assume that there are small storage compartments present which aren't modeled? And to give every ship at least a 0.5 SCU of "assumed" space, accessible through Mobiglas Equipment Manager when adjacent to the ship?
    • By easto1a
      Today I've been joined by TheNOOBIFIER1337 to discuss cargo improvements, server mesh tech and more for this episode of Ask The Devs Breakdown. The show is basically where I look at recent feedback from the Ask The Devs forum on Spectum, choosing answers to highlight.
      TheNOOBIFIER1337's Channel (Awesome guy!) - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCI-ybzjiaP2mSS81gaUxOiA
       
    • By Scuba_Shoelace
      hello, im sure you have all heard this before but i cant seem to fine the answer im looking for.
      Q1. is there a way to buy a cargo container for the RSI Aurora MR?
      Q2. if so where do i buy it?
      from what i have seen there are some sort of cargo containers for the ship but i have been unable to locate where i might be able to buy them. 
      thanks
    • By Buckaroo
      Ever start one of those missions to pick up some random box in space only to realize that your ship doesn't have a cargo hold?
      Well, now you don't have to worry about where to put that critical cargo or blackbox!  Just "strap" it to the roof with our patent non-slip invisible roof rack!

      Don't worry, it won't come off in hyperspace either!

      All you need to worry about is how do you get it down from up there!

      NOW only 99,999 credits at your local dealer!
       
      Satire post, just found a funny bug in Star Citizen 3.0 while attempting to deliver a picked-up box in space.  I was trying to see if I could put the box into the Co-pilot seat and it just "stuck" itself to the roof of the cockpit instead.  Thought I'd share and see if anyone else got some amusement from this.  
       
      EDIT:  I was able to get it off the top when I sat in the co-pilot seat and quickly attempted to pick the box up as the cockpit started to close.  It started to slide down the cockpit length at which I then exited the vehicle and I appeared suddenly standing on top of the hornet.  I hopped down, delivered the box, and completed the mission!
    • By TheJohnGalt
      Our structure is as follows:

      #1: Leader
      #2: Co-Leader
      #3: Profession Leader
      #4: Profession Member
      #5: Profession Fill-in
      #6: Independent

      With this structure, we allow as many profession leaders as possible to manage their own squadron. Should you want to be focused on mining you can star off as a Mining Member and eventually become a leader of your own crew. This goes for all types of professions. As for capital ship owners, maintaining a capital sized ship will be a profession on its own. An example of a #3 could be a Polaris captain with their own #4's as Polaris Crew Members.

      Should anyone not want to focus their attention towards a specific profession, they can always do what they like. If someone knows that they wan't to always do their own thing, they can remain as "Independent" and progress on their own liking but still under the umbrella of the org.

      With that being said, Self Made would like for all of you to consider applying and earning your own way among like minded individuals. Our goal is mutual benefit for all and to retaliate against any that would initiate force upon others. We uphold honor, integrity, and justice among the verse. Should you have any questions, feel free to ask. You can find our history in progress, manifesto, and charter on our RSI Org page here: https://robertsspaceindustries.com/orgs/1905

      Should anyone be thinking about getting the game Star Citizen, you can always make an account now and purchase later. There is no need to buy the game when making an account.

      We are currently more focused on hiring leaders of professions more than anything as of now. We currently do have a Polaris captain but would like to find dedicated mining leaders, cargo run leaders, and exploration leaders as such.

      Thank you for checking us out, we hope to build a strong community of Self Made Men. Good day to all, and may the Verse be with you.
×