Star Citizen 3.24.2 - 10 Minutes More or Less Ship Review - DRAKE CORSAIR 

Yes mine has all of a sudden turned into a starlancer MAX 🤷‍♂️

Multicrew ship needs multicrew to be as effective! Mild shock!

Eh it was needed, I love my corsair and drake as a whole, but it was w a y too strong with just a pilot and no crew, especially as a exploration ship

@@andrewboyer7544 Multicrew as a whole needs to *be* effective in the first place, and the way they forced multicrew on this ship is completely ridiculous, there is no way you ask someone to get in that seat so they can press a button to fire on a 30 degrees angle with extremely limited visibility on top of that, this is just the dumbest way possible to have multicrew, multicrew in of itself is already the most inefficient and tedious way to play but forcing it in places where it's not supposed to be is very frustrating, in fact this is very similar to what they did with the Antares where the scorpius antares is labelled as a multicrew but the role of the copilot is just to press a single button every 10 minutes so the gravity well generator turns on. Besides the main issue is that it didn't deserve a nerf in the first place, and in fact I haven't seen anyone able to argue why it deserved it, it always comes down to "pilot controlled DPS" while ignoring every single one of its drawbacks and ignoring what this ship was advertised as supposed to be doing (which justified the high DPS) I say if they really wanted to nerf it so they can sell the TAC they should've nerfed the shields or/and maneuverability, it would've made far more sense as it fits with what the ship is supposed to be in the verse (corsair=pirate) and most people would be fine with it while also making it weaker and shacking up the meta, but no greed was stronger and they needed to completely nerf it into the ground so that they make sure the people who had a corsair get a TAC instead which conveniently is more expensive so they will also be forced to spend money and cannot just melt

CIG always said the copilot could control the S5 guns, so I wasn’t surprised at the nerf, though as a Corsair owner, the current change feels not very well thought out. The game is an alpha, after all

​@@andrewboyer7544You aren't the brightest, huh?

even better, give missile control to the co pilot, and let us use missile mode from the remote turret view.

Yeah I agree with you - they basically killed this bird.

Even the supposed reason made no sense. "We don't like how many like how many [defeats] it's getting."

@@AccidentalFriendlyFire It made no sense because that was never the reason for the nerf. CIG didn't nerf it because it was getting too many kills or any kind of multicrew balancing. CIG nerfed it because they have too many Corsairs out there and they need Corsair owners to spend money upgrading it. We can be upset by the deceptive marketing, but it is what it is.

@@molboard98 *shrugs* I remember they released an infographic where the Corsair had something like 2x the kills of the #2 ship, which was the Andromeda. But we were never given a lot of information like how many there are of each, how many missions they perform, what the crew average is on each, etc. I'm pretty sure it was a truthful statement, whether or not it was the real reason. However, unlike the Redeemer we haven't yet gotten something that the Corsair would've been competing with that makes your logic truly compelling. The Redeemer lost its s5 turrets and dual s3 shields, and then in came the Starlancer TAC with dual s3 shields and two s5 turrets...at the exact same price point. I'm not saying you're wrong, either. Just that we haven't yet seen anything to prove you right. *gives the Mirai Guardian serious sideeye*

@@AccidentalFriendlyFire I’m sure the timing of nerf with the announcement of the Starlancer TAC was just a coincidence.

Fully manned with M7/M6 and panther/badger repeaters for the smaller guns makes: Corsair deal 5800 dps Conni deal 4800 dps Yh… Corsair is so useless…

Yeah and you ignored the missile difference and the snub fighter if we talk fully manned. Nice try buddy. ​@@PRIMEVAL543

@@PRIMEVAL543 No ide where you got those numbers but 4*s5 is better than 2*s4 + 2*s5, there's something wrong with your calculations there. Unless you're talking fully crewed in which case I could say the connie has turrets with far better coverage, using only 2 people and is far more maneuverable meaning the corsair pilot better be Maverick if he wants to put the little firepower he has over the connie to use, not to mention if we're going full crew 4 v 4 then the connie easily wins thanks to the snub fighter which the corsair alone is unable to deal with. And besides, let's be honest there's no situation where you're seriously using a full crewed corsair or a full crewed connie, most of the time it's you alone or at best with 1 guy, what will happen is everyone in their own connies winning easily against the multiple corsairs thanks to more pilot controlled DPS and literally everything else or both the teams will switch to light fighters since multicrew ships suck big time in pvp anyway

@@Stormyy6310 So? The corsair still has a much nicer cargo bay. The elevators are ass. Honestly dude, saying the corsair is worse in every way is just wrong. And also, the connie has HUGE weakspots with those engines, destroy just one of them and its nearly unflyable. And destroying them is extremely easy. And the interior? It's not even comparable. The connie doesn't even have STORAGE! You wanna put armor, ammo and other stuff u find into a box? Yeah no, you dont have a box. And weapons? 2! gg. Please m8, the only real reason people still used the connie when the corsair was released is because the corsair is ugly AF on the outside.

Mobility matters. Dps doesn’t mean shit if you can’t hit target. Connie is a school bus in space

Never thought about increasing the remote turret size, but I like that idea. As for downsizing the pilot weapons, I've thought that was the better option since they decided to split them. Splitting them makes zero sense. Go from 4x S5 / 2x S4 to 4x S4 and 2x S3. Problem solved.

disagree, better remove the 2 s4 guns on wings and put them on the top remote and pilot keeps 4s5 same as connie.

@@aka-47k sir, you nailed it!

what was the argument? Pilot dps? Either you get to complain about the pilot not having enough dps i.e. the compliant, or you're happy for it because it destroys the single man beast ship meant for a crew. You don't get to make both arguments to get a single man pirate god ship. Yeah it has turrets. Have a pilot fly trying to use his front cannons like a fighter and you help engage. LOL. The nerf makes sense it's not your capital fighter.

@@fathead8933 That they applied this nerf to the Corsaire specifically isn't really my point. They made a fully crewed ship less than it was. The ship can now only use 10 of its 12 guns fully crewed, when it used to be able to use all 12. If their goal was to encourage multicrew, making multicrew worse than it was isn't going to help. It makes their change seem less thought out. It seems more like it was done out of spite that people are "playing the game wrong" in their eyes. For the record, I don't fly the Corsaire, but they indicated they would be applying this same spite to other ships. I fail to see how that is going to make people want to crew up rather than just go with more, smaller ships.

Exactly. Now you need to buy an other ship for combat

Specifically the starlancer tac hahaha

@@ronelicabandi9706 The tac has less pilot dps than the corsair even now. That doesn't make sense.

@@andrewboyer7544 lmao dude if they didn't nerf corsair people won't buy new ships. Starlancers was sold after nerf.

@@ronelicabandi9706 The corsair is still higher dps! Even post nerf! That makes no sense!

I thought the guardian was supposed to be a competitor to the Scorpius and Hurricane? You think it will be competing with the corsair and connie instead?

I’m sure with all the mention of the Connie’s after this hit on the Corsair they are eying the Connie’s very closely.

@@EvenLease44 The problem with doing this is that they effectively ruined the balance and now they will have to rebalance a lot of ships which were dependant on those 2, and the way they did it that means now the only choice will be andromeda/Taurus, it will be the uncontested meta whereas before there were reasons to use a corsair or an andromeda/taurus, each had their advantages and disadvantages. I've seen some people say they should nerf the connie down to s4, now take the hornet mk2 with 2*s4 + 2*s3 + 2*s2, that would mean a light fighter has close to as much firepower as a gunship while also having speed and maneuverability, they would have to nerf the hornet too otherwise it would be unbalanced and now they also have to nerf the ships dependant on the hornet and... you get the point, this is an Helldivers 2 situation, by nerfing everything into the ground all it will do is make people use the number 2 which is now number 1 and after you nerf that they will use number 3 etc... and by the end every ship is weak as hell and nobody knows where we're going and most likely they will just stop in the middle of doing it meaning now a ton of ships are to another standard and balance is broken and resources will have to be spent rebalancing again. This is just incredibly stupid if they wanted to avoid unecessary spending. I haven't seen anyone ever in the past mention the corsair or connie as being op since everyone playing the game can tell that those ships are balanced in fact I heard the opposite last year with the thruster hp issue the corsair had and how it was way too weak and in need of a buff, CIG really shouldn't listen to these people, the devs will probs not revert the change but they need to abstain from causing more unnecessary damage besides if they really want to balance multicrew ships so much they should first make sure multicrew is actually effective and worth doing before attempting anything, that's the major part of the equation they've been missing or ignoring on purpose

Their concern wasn't solo pilot DPS. Their concern was Corsair owners not spending money to upgrade their ship. Once you understand this was a marketing decision and not a gameplay decision, it makes much more sense.

Buy the upgrade and just don’t apply it, gives you time with the Corsair till the TAC is available and you secure that upgrade at its now price instead of its release price.

@@EvenLease44 you're right king thank you

Better yet, buy an upgrade from the Aquila, and wait for Warbond CCUs to save a bunch. My Corsair came from a 350r and I didn't get the best savings, still saved $75. You can probably save almost that much going from Corsair to the TAC.

Why? You plan to fly with a human crew when it comes out? It's way heavier and less dps as pilot.

@GW2Vids1 Yes. I mostly fly with 2-3. The medical beds, larger SCU, hangar, turret placements/size, and larger shields make the TAC more appealing to me.

Lmao probably unless rsi favoritism persist. Anyways taurus is one of the bread and butter of rsi store page a lot of people spend real cash to get taurus so maybe they won't.

@@ronelicabandi9706 Yeah possibly, we shall see!

that man gets it, multicrew just the way CIG intended, press a single button which has a very niche usage while being in an extremely claustrophobic environment with 0 visibility

@@Stormyy6310 welcome to every job in the irl universe except pilot.

must be really fun to play by yourself.

Supposedly. We should've heard something about them this last weekend, it's one of my biggest disappointments that we didn't.

In 3 years MINIMUM when that comes out? No thanks I'll fly something else.

@@robopenguin5501 If they didnt talk about it last week, its not coming. This is good for the game. You dont want a multiplayer game without any interaciton, which is the only thing an AI crew would provide. We dont want to allow single man use of capital ships.

@fathead8933 well they actually clarified on AI blades today, look at spectrum. They are coming with 1.0

@@EvenLease44 that’s the worst thing that can happen to this game. 1. You have people dedicated to orgs that are blocked from identification in said org. You have orgs who have the entire purpose of destroying gameplay. Now they’ll have access to single man capital ships. 2. What is the purpose of the multiplayer experience with an AI crew? AI crews need to stay in AC and S42.

Wait for the Connie nerf

@@asog88 precisely. They will nerf everything until solo play goes extinct.

@@theonefrancis696 well a solo player shouldn’t have those ships as their primary. They will add blades and such, but ultimately medium and lower ships are for solos and large and larger are for crewed ships. There should be far more of an advantage to crewing a single ship than bringing multiples of less or non crewed ships. That’s how they balance more powerful ships, by demanding them to be crewed

​@@theonefrancis696^ this guy is right. It's not solo play. It's solo play in ships meant for a crew. You were never supposed to be able to solo in the corsair like everyone was using it.

@@asog88 except the connie and corsairs are literally designated as medium multirole ships, they're supposed to be and were advertised as being the ships that bridge the limit between "very powerful but so big it needs a crew" and "full power solo but very low power" while also having drawbacks for being jacks of all trade or if you decided to solo them (and don't try to argue they don't have drawbacks because they absolutely do, you are lying to yourself if you think much less maneuverability, much less speed and less powerful turrets are not major drawbacks), but truely though the main problem we're facing here is we're all acting like multicrew isn't the single most inefficient and tedious way to play, until they fix this then I will continue to consider any balancing change made to multicrew ships as futile and a complete waste of development resources

You don’t need to apply it right away, you can buy an upgrade between the two now and just keep it in your hangar or put the upgrade in your buyback. (exchanging the upgrade before it is applied puts it in your buyback held at that price)

Correction: CCUs do not retain their value anymore, they must be bought back for the current price, even if it was a Warbond and a Warbond CCU is available and you use cash. It'll still be a Warbond CCU, but you won't have the savings.

@@EvenLease44 Sweet! Thank you!

When did that happen? I have to read up on some CCU changes it seems.

@@EvenLease44 I don't remember exactly when, but after September 23rd when I repurchased my concept Sabre>Hull C CCU. Even prior to that when I went to buyback recent CCUs they were working like that, but now even legacy CCUs like that Hull C have been adjusted to use current prices (IF they're in buyback). I have CCUs in buyback that I can't buy back because they actually lower the value and the store doesn't let that purchase get made, where they might have been $5 or $65 before the change (so obviously nobody is going to spend money to lower the value). Like I had a legacy Freelancer MIS to Sabre CCU, which was $5 but because of changes in prices between them the Sabre now costs $5 less than the MIS.

Yes! Shields were tuned in 3.24.2 and many of them nerfed to add variety to upgrading shields.

It's closer to how Freelancer played; shields were generally weaker than hulls and it was unusual to have a fight and not lose them entirely, even in the VHFs like the Titan... That was built by the Corsair faction.

@@EvenLease44yikes..

Redeemer was far worse, and to add insult to injury it wasn't long after the TAC came out at the same price with what the Redeemer lost plus medical beds, drop seats, and a Fury hangar, plus 48x the cargo.

I personally agree with you that the Corsair changes were due to multi crew gameplay, and it out performing where it is supposed to be per CIG, but I do think the StarLancer TAC has an advantage in certain areas over the corsair… the starlancer is another ship to help add variety in a very void of variety space.

@EvenLease44 I never said it didn't have advantages. But if the two fight with just a single pilot and no crew the corsair will win every time. But I like multicrew gameplay so the Starlancer is perfect for me.

They’d nerfed it now in preparation for changes that will be here when? 2 years? 5 years? I don’t think that makes sense.