I always had hopes of once you boosted up to speed, you could then shut down unnecessary components, thrusters etc. and coast at speed to conserve fuel, plus be stealthy in that process . Say like getting to the other side of a system like Pyro or travel across very large systems. It would Not be fast travel, but would be very stealthy and save a lot of fuel and that would be the trade off, time or fuel, speed or stealth.
If they decide to stick with this style of flight, I don't think I will play anymore. The 6DoF is one of the key things I want from a space game. It really sucks because I don't think we'll ever get a truly good space game if CIG screws up SC.
6dof makes no sense in SC when all the ships are designed for WWII in space. If you want pure/realistic 6dof every shop variant would essentially be a sphere covered in thrusters
Something I’ve been looking forward to with control surfaces was having drastically different flight models when flying in atmo and in zero g. So certain ships succeed more in one then the other AND certain players will just naturally be far better in one vs the other. Trichording and turning on 45s seemed to me like a cool way of differentiating zero g and atmo.
I like this video -- it doesn't go overboard and I think the suggestions are sound. I agree, we don't know how well this will work out until we get control surfaces. One thing I really liked (though I haven't tested myself) is that itl ooks like QCM, or nav mode, is still perfectly acclimated for racing, which I love. I'm sure we'll get an experimental mode for Master Modes in-atmo once they deliver control surfaces to the PU (they finished testing it in SQ42 with the AI and the ships in that game last month, so fingers crossed that control surfaces make their way into the PU with 4.0 at the end of the year).
This was spot on, great video! My fear is that CIG already made their mind and impolemented MM version in SQ42 and they'll just do some minor tweaks to it and not take this sort of feedback in account. I fear we'll get the current MM with some minor adjustments in the end version and not much will change.
I have the same concern as you. The promise of CIG was to develop a spacesim, not a arcade space game. I expect realistic physics. To help a less experienced player, to make the flight model more accessible, we have coupled mode as some kind of flight assist. That is ok. But for example to artificially reduce speed when you stop boost is a no go in my opinion. I hope CIG is listening.
They've been going more and more arcade lately. I don't think they even remember what a sim is supposed to be like. All SC has is a thin veneer or unnecessary complexity posing as a bad sim experience. Sims are deep, complex and interesting. SC flight mechanics are not deep, not complex, and not interesting.
@@chrishoppner150Sims are not deep complex and interesting. They are sims. They are literally boring AF without other players unless you’re talking about single player sim experiences and even then it’s still boring AF unless that’s your niche you’re interested in haha. But single player-multiple player sims are entirely different dichotomies. But most single player sims aren’t actually even close to “Sumalations” it’s just a buzz word the genre has moved to. City Skylines is considered a sim and I can promise you building cities does not look anything like that.
@@chrishoppner150 Yes. By design any sim is boring to anyone who isn’t particularly interested in what is being simulated. It’s not possible. There’s no content. All of the “content” is just a translation from real life. I play sims. I love some sims. Sims are boring AF and have no content and only appeal to very specific people. If a simulation is adding anything to make something more interesting it thus detracts from reality and the thing being simulated thus turning that element into gameplay.
Great explanation. This change is terrible. Sucks the wind right out of my sail's. Makes me feel that I just want to move on to something else. Maybe just stick with DCS. sigh.
I agree, I’m not talking about the technicalities here but just the way it feels and it feels cheap, like a console game basically I love to put hours and hours into learning the craft and I just pray that I will still have the desire to do this in the future. I also HATE what they’ve done to lag pip which no longer looks directly at the enemy ship!!!! The main reason why the people who used it liked it!!
Totally agree, and Im disappointed about circle vs square mode. However, I would tune the FM without the fucking controller in mind. Controller are not for this type of game. Probably they want more market and will make the SQ42 for console also, that's why isn't ready yet. All this with PU money and PC users.
Would have to agree with the video. I just started trying to get into dogfighting more and taking it seriously with my sticks. Mainly practiced in MM in arena commander for about a month and could compete overall with majority of the pilots but could kinda tell when I ran into an ACE and got beat. However, when I switched over to free fly to practice there…holy shit the skill gap or weight on the scale that MM created was insane. Landing shots was extremely difficult if your not flying properly. And learning how to properly tri-cord and rotate takes a lot of practice. What would also be interesting is if CIG made a tutorial for advanced flying highlighting how to do these maneuvers, cause part of the problem is most people don’t know what they are or how to do them until they run into a pilot that destroys them completely and the person tries to figure out why in their own.
To me, what has defined SC's Flight Model throughout all its iteration has been something John Pritchett has prioritized from the start : consistent ship capabilities. Very little artificial limitations with putting the pilot at the center of every system. I hope CIG will manage to preserve that. I agree with a lot of what you had to say, as you know. To repeat it verbatim in a public setting : what's not ideal about this change is that it introduces limitations to ship capabilities, not based on the IFCS, physics or even the way thrusters are simulated but instead on a gamepad's circular range of motion. It does not make intuitive sense that the ship's thrust envelope should be predicated on and limited by a single device while creating opposing problems with the others. While nerfing trichording to an extent is necessary for me, a ship's thrust capabilities should not be this heavily limited by a single input device. Instead, that device's inputs should be mapped smartly, solutions developed to enable full ship capabilities on it without breaking the game's incredible consistency with ship capabilities. Where I disagree with you Maze is that I don't see removing trichording itself as a bad thing. CIG is in my view throwing the baby out with the bathwater with the circular input limitation, but trichording itself isn't necessarily a very good thing. Consider that the OG Descent competitive scene lived and died by it, and I found it to have become a mandatory, very unpleasant and clunky way of flying. I am certain that there are ways to keep a high skill ceiling without relying on trichording, so food for thoughts there. I also think that feeling the effect of trichording without its full magnitude could be nice, but that's for another conversation. The most difficult thing to accept with a circular input is that in effect, it severely hinders the core and essence of a 6dof space-sim : having high angles of attack, that high vector control and even decoupling your attitude from your translation vector. It feels like this change makes it so you can only ever point in the direction you intend to thrust with as little deviation as possible if you want to remain competitive with your opponent. That to me leans more toward an atmospheric doctrine in space, and it worries me a bit. So here's my feedback! To end on a positive note, possible solutions! - Mapping gamepad input onto a square range of motion. - Probably the least clunky : mapping gamepad in a way that keeps the circular response curve until you get to 80% of the corners, where it responds in a faster manner, not unlike the sprint reaction in a 3rd-person action game. - Having a fully-circular response with an "override" toggle that temporarily maps it to a square response, something again that would behave like a "sprint" response. Cheers!
You have perfectly echoed my concerns with MM, from the time they were announced. The artificial slow-down with retro thrusters is just like Elite, or any other arcade space shooter like Star Wars. WHY!? CIG had such a fun flight model and they could have simply gone with fuel-flow, or temperature, or structural limitations to make players reduce speeds. They could have reduced thrust output from RCS and Retros (simply going with small exhaust = small thrust), but nope ... they had to go with these silly MM! Think about the non-combat folks. I am a combat pilot and yes, jousting is annoying, as is desync, but simplifying the joy of space flight for single-player game style combat is not the fun way to go about it. I came from Elite to Star Citizen (Odyssey, around the same time you did) and immediately fell in love with the flight model. Remember your series "Why play Elite?". And now CIG is devolving to the same level :( You also raised a very good point about yaw and roll, and we have that as a basic test in our DCS squads where a cadet needs to complete a circle while maintaining level altitude, or display control during barrel rolls, or simply know how they can improve their turns with yaw + roll. It's such an important thing in atmo and it would just be even more critical in space.
There is an easier and more exiting way to fix the flight model without MM or any other fails that CIG developers are attempting. Use the in game G force induced blackout mechanic in a realistic way. 15-26 Gs is unrealistic and is the reason for 70% of the flight model fails. The other factor is weapon velocity vs ship velocity ratio. As for the flight mechanic, not balance, the common denominator is the pilot. The blackout mechanic affects the pilot not the ship. Lowering the Gs and time @ Gs to blackout will slow dogfighting maneuvers naturally regardless of ship performance. The fading vision and heart pumping is exiting and realistic. No need to limit ship velocity with hard game mechanics that work in one instance but fail at another. This works regardless of whether tri-cording or not. It will eliminate endless jousting as it will no longer be an effective strategy. It will end LF and SF from perpetually dodging incoming fire with unrealistic 15-26 G maneuvers. Large ships with gravity generators are immune to G lock but are heavy and not very maneuverable and are not the problem in the first place. If CIG developers would look into this and even test it out they will become believers in this fix. MM is going to fail and ruin the best part of 6 axis space flight and is way more work than they need ATM. The question is how long till they realize it? If this strategy was implemented with pilot set preset velocity and G limiter toggle buttons, it would result in endless tweaking adjustments to get the most of of their ship of choice. As for the game pad issue, this is an easy fix as well, make the mix 100% on both thrusters at max deflection. Simple coding fix. Problem solved!
The only way I could explain how it feels is as if you're playing a competitive racing game. And instead of allowing people to ride the limit controlling their vehicle by use of wheel, keyboard, and controller. The devs suddenly say you wheel players have to much control, then proceed to turn on stability control, traction control, brake and turning assist and be like we fixed it aren't you happy!?!
The intuitiveness of thing is really important in a game , or anyuser experience, they should just boost pads and leave tri-choreing as is or like what you said .
Bring back John Pritchard. Pre 3.0 was the titts for flight combat in space. This "dumbing-down" to level the skill gap is not interesting to competitive play. Even competitive trash like myself.
If you need an explanation, just think of the total engine power as a max sum game. If you take away power from mains to maintain hover, you should be penalized by less power to mains under a max total sum. Conversely if you have control surfaces, you will be rewarded over the ship that does not have them because your lift and drag do the upward force, not your engine's power. This is a more natural and easier way to implement than dealing with overheating mechanics which lets face it...they would NEVER have gotten right. Likewise in space, if you max out your mains, you can't fire strafe without a penalty. In the end is all about balance, not realism because speed limits are unrealistic...trichording or not.
I'm not an ace pilot by any means and I haven't tried out MM yet but if I understood what BlackMaze said correctly then for me the most disturbing thing about all this is the elimination of the roll/yaw combo. It's not as though it's a difficult concept to grasp and it's not hard to learn. You can do it with a keyboard, you don't have to have a fancy joystick, so it's not as though it's a 'pay to win' mechanic either. I don't really care if they dial back the tricording a bit but if you can't use roll anymore then it's a ball buster as far as I'm concerned.
I completely agree with BlackMaze's critique of the Master Modes Flight Model. His concerns regarding the MM Flight Model are sound and his suggestions to improve the flight model make a lot of sense and are reasonable. I would prefer the return of tri-chording with some limitations, as BlackMaze has suggested, perhaps by implementing a sort of energy capacity to restrict the min-max duration and strength while performing a tri-chord maneuver. Penalizing a player's ability to perform movements and maneuvers, that are realistically possible and expected, in order to introduce an artifical limitation that normalizes the range of input between different Controller input devices, would essentially diminish the value and enjoyment of owning such a unique Controller Input device, that may have input capabilities beyond a typical Console Controller. The typical Console Controller is designed to universally accommodate as many play styles as possible. Whereas, Star Citizen's supposed appeal is knowning that it is being designed in a way that will not significantly limit a player's experience or enjoyment of the game by supporting a variety of unique Controller input devices that function with the advantages intended in their design.
CIG out here trying to kill the racing community. JUST after their devs spent so much time creating these race tracks. I hope they listen to the community on this, because this is just one step closer to SC becoming an arcade game vs the simulation they ser out to produce. 😢
@@billywashere6965 I'll believe it when I see it. Sounds like an overpromise that they can easily underdeliver on. Not hating here, just disappointed and know to keep my expectations low for this project 😔
Shutting down tricording is stupid. 🤦🏻♂️ In my opinion they should at least have main thrusters and the manoeuvring thrusters separated when it comes to power. Yeah it would make sense when maneuverimg thrusters have a spherical power output, but the main engines in the same sphere is idiotic. You should always have at least duo-chording speed. Even if you limit the overall output of the maneuvering thrusters. I think that’s a quite elegant solution. And it could be influenced by mixing different maneuvering thrusters to give us for example an advantage in rotation or strafing in one direction. If you want to play Star Citizen on a controller, you’re doing it wrong anyways if you ask me! But even if I would play Star Citizen on a controller, i would still be able to Tri-chord, because the calibration can offset that 45 degree input to 100% XY. I played Descent 3 and was able to tri-chord with the cheapest sticks! And you can in fact tri-chord with a controller as long as you put your strafing axis on sticks and the two analog triggers. So no problem there. In my opinion that’s just a really lazy attempt to cater to noobs. Even the sound argument makes no sense, since boost should always sound more „impressive“ And to be really petty, the sound should depend on the amount of thrust you’re giving. And if you’re cruising at max SCM in space the sound should be of anyways, because the thrusters shouldn’t need to fire anymore, as long as you don’t change directions. Maneuvering has been fine the way it was. Don’t dumb it down for complaining noobs. FFS! 🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️
For every player complaining that MM dumbing down combat or lowering the skill will kill the game, there are 20 more less obsessive players who will now enjoy PvP without spending enough time to get an associates degree in video game space fighter combat. It doesn’t matter if MM is less realistic, or less rewarding of skill. It is plainly more accessible, and results in closer combat to show off all these pretty ships more. Some of you don’t seem to realize that about half the player base or more has no idea why they can never seem to hit regular PvPrs in combat, nor dodge anything. The gap is simply too wide to be enjoyable to the majority of the player base, and many of the people complaining are either obsessing about realism in a game with ships that aren’t remotely realistic, are tryhards who put academic level study into video game tactics, or worse, are just upset it won’t be quite as trivial to whoop a bunch of average players at once.
If I'm understanding correctly, it sounds to me like your core line of thinking is that you want to have a more accessible skill floor; but in a way that the gameplay is more organic and congruent than it is with artificial speed limitations. It's not great game design to have such a disconnect between max performing your spacecraft in and out of combat. I actually have an idea that I don't follow Star Citizen anywhere near as often as I used to, but I have 3000 hours of PvP experience in various WW2 sims, and 3000 more in DCS specifically. I'm good at dogfighting and have a high level understanding of the theory (you can verify this with my channel videos). I don't know what your experience level is, but when you dogfight with missiles in DCS, it causes a major shift in tactics from guns only. Instead of only fighting for energy and nose position, you also need to fly just close enough to your opponent so that their missiles don't have enough turning room to track into you. Which naturally forces you to slow down for tighter turns (but getting too slow is still bad news, it's a balancing act). What is the relevance of this? Well, I've always felt that missiles were in a really weird place in Star Citizen. It's like they're just there to be there (because it's the future), but don't really synergize all that well with the gameplay. I'm curious as to what would happen if missiles were balanced to have that limited turning room, while also still being enough of a threat that pilots would seriously want to avoid getting hit by them, incentivizing speed control. Jousting into a 180 degree rotation while traveling in a straight trajectory would risk creating too much separation. Which is dangerous because the missiles would easily hit their target. With proper tuning it could potentially enable players at the lower end of piloting skill the ability to be more effective on average, while pilots at the higher end would formulate tactics to stay within that deadzone or force separation in moments of opportunity. Increasing the potential tactics ceiling for 6DoF combat, all without artificially limiting speed. I know Chris Roberts seems to specifically want WW2 in space, but that can't truly happen without the effects of lift and the resistances imposed by atmospheric flight. If he would just read a few books and/or watch a few videos on BFM/ACM theory then he would understand why that is. The most he'd achieve is endless turning in circles akin to battlefield without any of the depth of true WW2 dogfighting.
If it makes the skill gap between the very best and very worst pilots less, I am all for it. Anything to get as many people playing as possible. If you cater to the 1% elite players, your game will fail because it will be unfun for the majority of players.
It's really not.... think of it in terms of thrust vectoring. You have one powerplant and get to choose in which direction you direct force from that powerplant, analogous to real aircraft e.g. Harrier / F22. The current implmentation treats every thrust source as an individual thrust soruce, i.e. their results stack. If you wanna argue one being more 'physically realistic' than the other, particularly for smaller ships, treating each thrust source as an engine unto itself makes less sense (you got engine at rear capable of 15g acceleration, is maybe 1/3 of your ships volume, if you want 8g out of an independant thruster, then said thruster ought to be physcially quite large). I think the change makes perfect sense, and it's likely that the 'circle because joypads' explanation is only a part of the narrative for the change.
Since we are talking sim physics, these limitations DO make sense as what you've talked about here does not take into account the structural integrity of the ship or the forces applied to it's chassis. There are manouvers achievable in game that would severely bend or rip apart the structure. I'm sure many will argue that the materials used are superior to what we have irl now, but to what extent?
Just want to point out that the spherical model's 70% in the corners is in comparison to the cube model. The single axis thrust would be 100% all the way around, and any combination of x-y is not lesser. Radius versus hypotenuse.
18 дней назад
this vid aged very well and cig would be good to pay heed to this we freaking told them a year ago
8:50 I have not played with master modes but what you describe would only happen if the G force of the planet was over 6 Gs. You are also forgetting about the atmosphere filght model where lift is also being calculated which will make up the difference. So if you apply forward thrust with same close to Z axis thrust you should rise not fall due to lift.
How many existing SC ships do not remotely look like lift generating bodies? Connies, Cuttys, Caterpillar, 600, etc. What should happen with them? Serious question, because IMO those kinds of ships should be near useless in atmo - capable of controlled ascent and descent, but not much else.
@@ThomasD66 Because the flight model is not that specific. Remember realistic as possible and then dialed back to fun.. That is the moto of CIG. If anything the drag model will just slow the ship down, resulting in more power available to the bottom thrusters OR CIG has already compensated in IFCS when in atmosphere to ensure that every ship can hover and fly. I really think everyone is overthinking this. Remember, this new mode is coming from SQ42. SQ42 has space and atmosphere missions and as such, CIG has already ensured that new master modes will not break the game. Remember this is classic CIG, Just tell enough information to let the players know a change was made without explicitly tell you HOW it actually works.
@@grast5150 "realistic as possible then dialed back" sounds nice, but it is not that way and has never been that way. But they are talking about implementing control surfaces, so the flight model is - purportedly - going to get that specific as regards atmo flight. Granted, we all hear what we want to hear, and ignore the rest.
@@ThomasD66 Since you are so smarts lets dive into that comment "" Never been that way ". Where would you like to start in this version of flight or the 5 previous versions. What about Hover Mode? You can believe what you want and it applies to this channel, Your suggestions are nothing but Fan wishful thinking. CIG is going to do what they want, when they want, and how they want and never take any of your suggestions. Ah yes the purported control surfaces which to fans means DCS level of control. However, in reality, When it comes out and will probably turns out to be just a method to make ships which look like planes perform exactly as they do now and nerfing all of the brick ships. Are you then going to come out and tell CIG how they should have done it and be upset when CIG does not follow your direction?
@@grast5150 LOL. You are not arguing against anything I have said so much as the voices in your own head. IOW you infer things I have never said. So, let me be clear "as realistic as possible" has never, EVER been close to being true. They have ALWAYS leaned towards playability and game like mechanics, sprinkling in a touch of 'realism' when possible. "6DOF" has NEVER been true 6DOF, even decoupled. Rotational inertia has ALWAYS been dampened. Beyond that I'd agree they may very well just nerf the brick looking ships into brick flying ships. Probably easier and cheaper. Which is pretty much what I already SAID should happen - "...near useless in ATMO..." Why you think I'm the "fan" or that I am going to be the one getting all salty, when it is you who are clearly escalating the rhetoric simply makes no sense. It's not "direction to CIG" that is being offered. Nobody thinks CIG is policing YT comment sections for input. Why you would suppose otherwise, even for rhetorical purposes just makes you seem overwound. Chill
Master Modes for Targeting. The servers are not able to process at current speeds. It is a game limitation aspect. Adding Engineering abilities and buffs to Multi-Crew, Adding Science and Co-Pilot abilities and buffs to targeting. These will also change the fighter kills everything mechanic. I think the fighters are so powerful so CIG can sell fighters for a profit. They have yet to give us the other Multi-Crew helper abilities a single fighter will not have. Only the Redeemer will have something more Multi-Crew than a fighter. This gives a Redeemer and Hammerhead superior survive-ability vs fighters. Also Multi-Crew ships with Many Positions to man. Force multiplier.
I disagree that strong bi-cording/tri-cording is the best interpretation of realistic physics. The main reason is that mav thrusters having 50%+ of the thrust of the mains is completely unrealistic. Main engines are 10 to 100 times the size of the mavs in game so should be the primary axis of thrust. Strong mavs only exist for gameplay purposes, so if gameplay dictates that tri-cording is bad for the game, then I am all for limits and restrictions being put in. If mavs could put our similar levels of thrust, but only for very limited timeframes with some form of fatigue, then that may be a good compromise, but I think ships boosting around off-axis is very unrealistic...
Well, I think in the end it will lower the skill gap. Not because the ceiling would go much lowery but the model will actually make some sense, making it easier to grasp for everyone
Going from time stamp 1:08. What part of space flight is realistic? The current model is airplane combat in space. There's no air in space meaning no lift. There's no friction in space meaning there's no external force to slow momentum. There's no gravity in space so G-force can only be attributed to acceleration. If you're going 20 meters per second squared or 44.73 Mph per second that amounts to 2Gs. Most humans blackout at 4-5Gs. If you've attained 100 m/s squared thats around 10Gs. You said we're flying around 1000 m/s no human could sustain those Gs Yet the most mind boggling thing is in order to turn in space ships are given a turning radius. Maybe drive a zero turning lawn mower or tank and you moght grasp how space ships can change directional headings instantly. Babylon 5 perfectly depicts this. Want to change ship facing say face to the right. Simply hit only your left thrusters. Turning left is the opposite hitting only your right thrusters. Wish to have this occur faster hit forward left and rear right and it will increases the speed at which you spin. Turning would never have a "radius" ship facing can be done rather quickly. You could argue wide arcs come into play when your trying to maximize speed and momentum. But theres no quickly stopping your foward progession unless your have reverse thrusters putting out double what your main does. Look when you say realistic i hear I'm a pilot or gamer who plays flight games and i want flight characteristics that exist in atmosphere....in space. Watch Babylon 5 or the Expanse.
Master modes is there preparation for SQ42. They need it to be counsel Ready
10 месяцев назад
I feel like you should be more clear of what you don't like and tell them cuz even though I'm fresh out of the oven I can understand how these changes would destroy the skill gap/space feeling like space. Please let them know more firmly and don't finish with "love what you're doing, can't wait for x,y etc.". If they see this they'll probably think "he's gonna keep playing anyways" and won't even care about it. There needs to be a proper reaction -- out of hundreds/thousands of people, not just you -- for them to actually stop and change course. Otherwise they might always aim for middle of the road accessible eye candy. I get that you're a chill dude and love the game, I love the game as well, but remember: We only have one, and I don't think we can get something like this in another 10-15 years :D so to all the OG SC guys and gals, please help shape this game to its potential -- with absolute passion and a bit of anger.
and this idea is absolutely stupid. You're seriously telling me that you have to bend 3 dimensional space using a qunantum drive in order to fly faster than 300 m/s second? For reference, today's satellites orbit the earth with over 30.000 km/h
@@_Anaklysmos_ it's not my idea so yeah I agree it's stupid. The while y idea of speed limits in space is stupid. But that's the reasoning that I understand they used in the past
@@jmcorp8021 The thing about the old speed limit was: Yes, it was there, but they didn't bother to give an explaination for it as it was obvious to everyone, that there had to be a speed limit for balancing reasons and because of the game engine itself. Also, this speed limit was right in your face, you didn't notice it very often. The only time was when you just qt'ed to your target in space and still need to fly over 30 km. That's when you accelerated to max speed. During combat, you really felt like you were flying in newtonian space as you almost never reached the speed limit. But what we have now feels wrong and has a stupid immersion breaking explaination on top of it
Okay, haring heard this I didnt know about 2/3 of it. And I can say I agree with most of what you said. We need to stop looking at this from a skill gap point of view. This is a space game, the one reality of space is that is is a cold unforgiving environment. Where knowing your equipment is litterly life and death. Input limitations are a dumb idea, and they need to seriously question whomever suggested the idea. I can understand it on some ships, for example some real fighters redirect the thrust from their main engines for their retro thrusters. And I could see similar tech used for maneuvering. However this would not make sense on a cutlass, whos engines are almost a separate part of the ship. Slowing down just because your boost isn't on in space makes no sense at all. And I'm not sure it even closes a skill gap. Their making a space game and if they break too far away from physicas then what is the point. It's no longer a space sim. Which is the major attractive feature of the game. I'm guessing that they will be listing engines by max speed rather than ISP, they also don't seem to get that engines perform differently in atmosphere than in space. Most rocket engines are designed for one or the other, aerospikes solve this somewhat but tend to be self destructive.
Edited out some typos, i didnt realize this was almost unreadable. I was also going to note that we could probably get a similar effect if we stop allowing ships to pull 14g turns. I agree with making scm default. And requiring us to boost to get above SCM. And if a pilot pulls 9g they start to red out, at 11g they pass out.
LONG ASS RANT BUT I THINK I SAID SOME RELEVANT THINGS I agree completely, and this change really seems to be odd for me. So artificial and I feel like its a step back, especially with the restriction with tri-chording. Of course there are some exceptions where tri-chording does not make sense, like with ships that rely on the same thrusters for multiple vectors, and yes in those situations combining multiple vectors would be unrealistic as it would essentially be like having the thruster in two different places at the same time, but considering the majority of ships do not rely on this type of thruster, this change essentially destroys the intuitiveness and diversity that would come from the differences in various thruster designs. (just fyi im not certain if tri-chording worked with the type of thruster i mentioned but i have a feeling that it did so if CIG just got rid of that that would make complete sense but getting rid of ALL tri-chording? that is very odd.) Why do CIG seem to focus so much on speed is my main question, or at least on limiting it. They introduced punishments in accuracy when exceeding certain speeds, and even in the old flight model the limit was speed, not acceleration. It's odd to me they have never to my knowledge attempted to reduce accelerations of ships to limit combat distances and speeds. If an f-16 could accelerate at 20g DCS would be a fucking nightmare and the fights would be terrible. So why does this same thing not raise alarm bells for CIG? do they just for some reason need these extremely high accelerations? I don't see why. All it does is make artificial speed restrictions more and more necessary, and make combat feel more like god-mode than actual flying. CIG has always said they want a similar type of combat to WWII aircraft and the simple reality is you cant have that type of combat without energy management, and you cant have good energy management when your ships get to max speed in half a second. Seriously, I'm puzzled as to why they haven't even seemed to consider this as an option. like, sure it would be harder to control aircraft on planets/moons without atmosphere and rendezvous with space stations may end up with a fuck ton more overshoots but I feel like the negatives are nothing compared to the amount of effort CIG has had to put in to artificially limit this sort of thing. And sure, the main issue with lowering accelerations is and always will be the space combat aspect of the game, but you can always have acceleration being higher in space due to some weird convenient thing in game like a specific thruster type that is far more powerful in space but does not produce nearly as much thrust in atmosphere. Lowering accelerations would provide numerous gameplay opportunities but honestly as we are getting further and further into development the likelihood of big changes like that are getting lower and lower. With lower accelerations you would be limited by the gravity of moons and planets, and cargo hauling would actually have complications like only being able to haul a small amount of dense material or a large amount of a low mass commodity on a planet with high gravity. One of my biggest issues with star citizen is the fact that they have some of the best opportunities to vary gameplay experience with the huge variety of environmental factors that comes with different planets, with gravity, air pressure, atmospheric makeup, weather, terrain, and so many other things yet there is almost no difference in what is required of you as a player from planet to planet. The only thing they have is atmospheric flight and even then the same tactics work for atmospheric flight that work with flight in space. I guess the thing that dragged me so deeply into star citizen was the possibilities that they have and its really sad to see them close themselves off from even a portion of what would have been amazing gameplay. I have a feeling the sheer number of employees that work on this game limit the possibilities of these types of things as developers are more or less restricted to their "portion" of the game. It seems like there is no huge plan to fit together all the parts, and it feels like they all iterate independently which will ultimately create a product that takes far longer to produce and is not as good as it could be if the developers had more synergy between teams and more direction. Of course I am not a CIG employee but from what I've seen this is definitely the impression I've gotten. It's annoying because CIG seems to have invested so much into master modes that it seems unlikely they will just scrap it but I honestly don't know why they have committed to a system like this. There seem to me to be so many other possible avenues for the flight model and yet I've seen no indication of their consideration. obviously CIG know why they went for this but the communication has been very lackluster and they haven't seemed to address the issues people have had since its announcement.
I need to get into the experimental mode and try this all out, all I want is the game to feel less like “no clip” mode, is star citizen going to end up with a flight model more like elite dangerous? As for the compressing the skill ceiling, I think it’s a good thing that the Barrier of entry for everyone is a level playing field even, we will all be using the same tools this way
The capacity answer is the best compromise ive heard and stops this input isolation issue I dont understand. One issue is kiting ie using up+back results in too much strafe power for side and backstepping fights so the capacity needs to be halved whenever backstrafe is applied
this is the thing thats probably going to get me to sell my account, not the lack of progress but the destruction of what star citizen had over the other games. sadly CIG does not really do dialogue they build something in hiding then show it, we shit on them, they cry about it and go back into hiding and build something new. repeat.
Forcing arcade pewpew game slow speeds is not the solution. The solution to jousting is missiles that actually are effective at making kills. Stay close and stay alive., joust and you open yourself up to missiles. The reason this doesn't work now is because missiles are so bad at tracking and do so little damage if they actually manage to hit. Unfortunately they seem to want to game with World War 1 cloth biplanes that just happen to look like spaceships. It often seems like the end goal is to take away 6DOF so that spaceships are forced to fly like airplanes. It really makes me wonder how they're going to handle all this emphasis on forward-flight will work with ships specifically designed to not work that way, like the Khartu-Al.
Interesting insight from one of the best pilot. you explainations and proposed solutions are great. I also agree jousting is not what we want in a spacesim. I like your solution for that I also expect that overheating would add a complexity layer over it. Though I think it's important to keep the 'off center' cicrle of power so that pushing forward is always stronger than backwards and let us keep close in combat. I also agree with avanger one on the fact that keeping boost speed where they are, scm should be higher so the difference between the two is smaller. Anyway, thanks for an interesting proposition cheers
Because I think scm speeds are really low and boosted speed seems reasonable. So cutting the difference should make the whole thing feels better imo. Though we only have one ship to test for now... @@StoneCoolds
@@daganael but inst that good tou, since it makes weapons a lot more deadly combat ranges shorter, and scaping harder, since A1 was complaining its very hard to scape now on his last video
Pls explain to me how beer can size thrusters can pull 15g's and the Barrel Size Mains pull 15g's.. how real does that Feel. The circular path is a better way. Think of it a Conservation of energy. And I don't think skill is in Tri-cording only. Again, is Digital Combat Simulator, Their are Pilots who are so much better then others. In Master mode, You'll just have to push limits harder, and learn REAL piloting skills and strategy instead of ARACADE Tri-Cording. Really, its the Tri-cording thats Arcade Like. And in Elite Dangerous, I usually get more kills then my team mates BECAUSE of better piloting skills and strategy.
Thrichording it's an accident? So the entire SC it's an incident since thricording is a thing since the 0.96 that sold SC to a lot of player. The incident was, personally, lowering the skill celling by g-force managment, putting limits by removing the possibility to deactivate the comstab function in the IFSC, allowing thricoding even without too much efforts by maximaise the accelleration and speed on weightless ships wihtout right g-forces penality in favor of faster angular rotations, injecting an aimbot for fixed weapons that allow to correct autoamtically more meters of aiming error the more the pip it's far of even an entire size of a ship and so on. Belive me, the rant it's more than justfied and I wish that all of you did tried the older ones FM, 1.1.3-1.3 or 2.6.3 to try to understand how did we end at this I don't know even how to call it.
After playing Master Modes for a long time (I have played a lot in Arena Commander with my org) I now belong firmly to the "Master Modes reduces skill ceiling"-camp. To me that is a huge issue, but even so my main issue with Master Modes is something else: The unreasonable in-your-face lack of realism. SC is primarily a sand-box game, a game where people can go in and do "whatever they like". That is all based on the sim-aspect. A single player story-line game controls how a player progresses through the game and can let events unfold on triggers, however an open-world MMO can not; it has to simulate everything deeply so that things work as expected no matter how many players appear, with any equipment and from whatever direction. The sim-aspect of the game goes much deeper though: A sim gives emergent game play; it lets players do things that the designers never even dreamt that they could do. This is what creates all those fantastic videos of shenanigans in the 'verse and is the core of what creates a sand-box. The rabbit hole goes deeper still: A good enough sim will gain the trust of players. If the game behaves realistically in all aspects, players will start expecting the game to behave realistically. This is where immersion comes in; players start trusting the game and believing in what it does, even when it goes against what they themselves believe! Players will start making up reasons in their minds that fit what the game does because they trust the game to be realistic. To achieve that level of trust though, you have to stick hard to realism! If you break it in any obvious way, like CIG are doing with Master Modes, players will know that the game "cheats", and when unexpected things happen they will blame it on poor design of the game rather than believe that it is an accurate though unexpected reflection of reality. OK, so who cares? Just make the game fun! The problem is that the "fun before realism" multi-player action shooter game is an immensely crowded space. Star Citizen can never (*never*) handle a direct head-to-head competition with the likes of Call of Duty, Battlefield, Fortnite, Overwatch, Counter Strike, etc, etc. Star Citizen has a corner of the game landscape where it can own the space sim fans, but if you lose that sim player base you end up with trying to capture the generic action shooter players. That is a race SC can never win. Winning in that space costs enormous amounts of marketing money, as well as a game carefully designed from the bottom up to compete in that arena. It needs to be a super smooth, fluid, trivially simple and extremely polished game of an entirely different kind than Star Citizen. So don't be dismissive about simmers; they are the core player base of SC and the day they no longer are, then SC will be trounced by the behemoths of the action shooter genre.
That's a bummer. I was just about to be in a place where I could get into SC, but the less realistic they make the game, the less interested I am in it.
with Sandy leaking that they plan on a console release for SQ42 during the Chinese bar citizen, the limits now make sense. the console version is screwing over pc, as it usually does.
Well, yeah, I would hope and expect that they do a console version of SQ42 after the PC version. It makes sense. The PU, not a chance until 10 years or something, but yes SQ42 should be ported to PS5 and series X if possible. It's meant to be a huge blockbuster AAA type game.
@amiththomas3884 this was backed as a PC game and should stay a pc game, only because they won't take the time to keep the flight model separated out, so if they build for gamepad it will ruin the pc model. Not only that, can you imagine how many consoles SQ would blow out. Consoles need software to be optimized. This shitstorm is nowhere close.
@@Hellhawk Chris has said from day one he would like to bring it to consoles if certain conditions were met. We know there's no chance of that happening to the PU for another 10 years (lol). The game does have to work for multiple control inputs, including gamepad. It's a singleplayer game, they can make it work in SQ42 without balancing the entire PU around it. Not everything has to carry over to PU. Only the overall systems. Also, SQ42 will be optimised for consoles. They just have to spend the time doing it. It's a singleplayer game. I for one think it will be doable on the PS5 and Series X... maybe not Series S. PS5 has got next SSD streaming speeds, decentish CPUs, pretty decent graphics performance. I think this can be optimized. Not like the PU, which can't.
@amiththomas3884 that's a fair take. I think our disconnect is that they don't have to balance it the same way as SQ, but they probaboy will. They'll also make it so that gamepad is the baseline instead of M&K or Sticks. Based on the initial look at Master Modes the model was redesigned to focus on control curves that focus on gamepad play. I don't mind controllers being considered for the game, but the flight model should be focused on m&k and stick.
Anyway the square system feels like every strafe direction have their own power plant. Tricording we using 3 power plants as we can reach 100% from each direction. Now they will limit your power supply. Perfect tricording now will be 33.33% power given to each side Instead 100% to each side. They want to bring engineering gameplay. So you will not have power to turn verything on with 100% efeciency.
I agree, dont think these are te solutions to te issues CIG is facing, not sure why they would penalize everyone else instead of buff controllers. . . seems counterintuitive.
I was particularly curious of your opinion as from experienced racer, on Master modes, second one was from AvengerOne as for PvP figters. Avenger seemed more optimistic about the Master modes, than you sound. I think many of your arguments are solid. Though, I didn't notice you taking into account future control surfaces, somebody mentioned them in the comments too. You mentioned DCS and ED. That mirrors my thoughts too. I hope CIG won't end up with shit show arcady flight model as ED has. WWII planes dogfights in 6DOF space? BS. In atmo on the other hand? Yes please. There comes the DCS. It needs control surfaces though. Otherwise you would need Manouvering thusters as powerful as you Main thusters. That's where I see trouble with current flight model. Seeing ship howering 1m from the ground nose down is ridiculous, just for starters. Having thrust in sphere also doesn't make sense in my opinion. MAIN thruster, and ponetially RETRO thrusters should be the most powerful. MANOUVERING thrusters can't have the same power, unless their combined thrust would be equal. Imagine Expanse flight model. That is realistic imo. And it doesn't prohibit tri-chording. It's just not gonna add as much from manouvering thrusters. Then the rubber band slowing of the ship, after you cut the boost is straight up nonsense. Everybody agrees there.
keyboard and mouse players are crying..... in a game with 6dof, hopefully this goes the same way as hovermode (although i did really like hovermode because it took skill)
They aren't, actually. If anything, this change benefits kb&m the most since they have binary inputs that don't suffer from drifting even slightly from the axii of thrust. This change still isn't good, and I say this as an aforementioned kb&m player.
You may not be penalise on a planet because of the lift generated going forward like a plane. Ofcourse some ship ll have to use VTOL. Still I agree that the new mode is quite strange. It is not definitive so your input may interest them
I haven't tried it out myself so I am also speculating here. Mastermodes is only for combat right? It does not applied on ships outside of combat iirc. If this is the case then the talk about realism won't be very strong because the idea of dogfighting that far into the future is unrealistic as well. This seems like a change to support a desired gameplay method. I am sure it will be tweaked when people try it out and if they hate it by large. Personally I hope this doesn't affect our ships outside of combat, as I actually like how ships fly currently.
@@unsungtales3217 That doesn’t mean that they will keep the tri chord model for nav mode does it lol! The whole reason they are getting rid of tri chording is because of controller players who physically cannot tri chord
I'm glad tricording is gone, I don't find it realistic, if other thrusters are using power from the engine then that engine should have less power available for the main thrusters. it was weird and it's not a fun game mechanic. The way your thinking of it is each thruster is its own engine, and that is not the case, engines create thrust, thrust gets diverted through to different thrusters.
13:25 Ding Ding Ding you win a prize. CIG does not care about skill. They are designing a model which does not require a lot of skill in order to be proficient. This will make the game fun for everyone which does not want to spend hours learning and practicing the details of flight combat. Remember, the majority of the player base are merchants, traders, and industrial professions. CIG is more than willing to compromise the hard core PVP community in order to ensure the bulk of the player base which will be PVE is made comfortable.
Seems like an easy solution rather than stripping guns and shields for a Nav Mode. Not sure I want to be flying around exploring with NO shields. Radiation?
Jousting is dumb but any knowledge of flight and you can negate it and capitalize on your "dumb" opponent. Even disengage them easier if that's the outcome you desire. Forcing people into this bubble just dumbs everything down and forces conflict. Even if that's what you are trying to avoid.
Yeah the change is atrocious. They should just have two very different flight dynamics for in and out of atmo. This is an offputting attempt to reinvent the wheel.
I am the only one that thinks star citizen speeds are fake? 230m/s is more then 800km/h yet when you fly with that speed it fills that you going with 90km/h.
The video we have all been waiting for is finally here! - Update, Excellent video. You have clearly explained the differences. I now feel like I understand the problems with the changes. Cheesy graphics and all. I hope they seriously consider your arguments.
I never liked how tri-chording was a thing in SC, however, I fully agree with what you have said here, and I really like your solution. It sounds like a good option and would largely remove the problems I see with tri-chording
I will never understand this weird obsession from the LF meta lovers with "realism". What about SC makes you think this game is realistic?? It isnt present in the flight or the fps combat at all. And how does realism benefit SC for what it is trying to be and how combat is going to fit in an MMO game?? All this crap hes spouting would only make sense in a game completely center around light fighters and if the game was only in AC and was all about fighter dogfights between the small fighters, i see this a lot with RU-vidrs who dont like MM they completely miss what this game is and hyper focus on one form of combat specific to a small number of the over one hundred ships in the game.
Master modes feels clunky and forced. It breaks so many things to fix something, and then it doesn't even fix the thing its trying to fix. Please revert back to 3.22 flight model and then tweak from there. Master modes has the potential to sink this game.
not really, it's like saying you can't use your shields or weapons during NAV mode, because of energy flow. Even though our thrusters are basically jet engines running on hydrogen, that should not require energy input
@satanicdude it's as easy as saying the hydrogen pipe coming out of your fuel tank can handle x Liters per second of supply. And while boosting it's able to be overpressurised for short periods of time. With thruster efficiency curves they would then be able to balance tri-cording for the sips to make every single one unique
The slow down after afterburner is so hilariously bad and feels extremely stupid. If I wanna have atmospheric like flight I go into atmosphere or play DCS. Smh
MM is far less deep than Live. In MM pitch is the equivalent of trichording and it’s instantly and effortlessly executable meaning both parties can effortlessly do it raising the skill floor considerably and dropping the skill ceiling by eliminating the nuance between trichording and bichording. Most frustratingly of all it’s unintuitive. The thrusters are oriented in 3 directions why would you not get your strongest vector from that? Is this a 6D flight game or something less. No one plays Star Wars squadrons anymore. Without the novelty of flying an X-wing MM’s shallow FM is gonna get real old real fast.
Very well thought out concerns, BM. Is there any way we (your viewers) who agree with your concerns can lend strength of voice to them so that CIG realizes how many Players are not happy with the direction they are taking MM? Perhaps a Spectrum Petition that articulates these concerns and recommendations which we could then sign on to support? I strongly agree with your logic to cap a ships max thrust output along any tri-chording vector. I think that's the way to go.
No more trichroding is a good thing. At the moment in combat if you do not Trichord you just lose, which means its pretty much all anyone does. It is incredibly boring.
It’s not boring at all because it’s incredibly difficult to pull off consistently and stay close enough to scrape your opponents cockpit. But if you can pull it off it’s incredibly rewarding and that’s how things should be. Not some instant arcade mode for beginners like master modes feels to me
trichording for rotational movement has that effect, but with translational movement, as he focused on in the video, it makes perfect sense and is not unintuitive. The issue is that the ships in star citizen have thruster placement that makes it so the best rotational speed is achieved at a 45 degree angle. Also, if you do not trichord, you do not "just lose", as the benefit is not enormous and 99% of players aren't able to do it all the time. Tri-chording is an issue because of CIG's thruster placement, rather than the concept itself. The exception is when thrusters are used in multiple vectors, and afaik atm they are treated as two different thrusters, so when you bi-chord instead of the thruster just producing its expected thrust it produces both thrust vectors at the same time, essentially doubling its thrust. This is not intended, and if this change simply got rid of that, I would be all for it. but since it gets rid of all tri-chording, including tri-chording with translational movement, I don't think the change is positive or makes sense. If I am correct about the behavior of these thrusters used for multiple vectors (they are the ones that move and are usually maneuvering thrusters though ships like the fury have them for their mains) then just fixing that would drastically reduce the advantage of tri-chording. The reason I believe that there is an issue with these moving thrusters is that thrust vectors are currently additive, whereas if these moving thrusters were simulated correctly you would lose a decent amount of acceleration. Example: if you had a ship with only one thruster, and it was able to provide thrust to translate either left or up at 3G acceleration, you wouldn't expect to get 6G acceleration when holding both left and up, but this is what you see in game, note this is different than if you had multiple thrusters that were used for unique vectors, as those vectors would be additive. So tri-chording for rotational movement should not be a thing, but it is a thing because of the issue with rotating thrusters, and thruster placement. However, translational trichording should absolutely be a thing, and makes complete sense. I still need to test the thing with rotating thrusters but I am pretty sure they are behaving incorrectly atm.
