Note: This conversation started as a break and forth between Yogi and Avenger One. I'm not a combat focused player, I'm here for good information and context. I hope you enjoy and get the most out of this 😊 Also apologies on any sound issues, still ironing out the new PC!
Thank you for bringing on such awesome guests as always. The discussion on MM has us all on the edges of our seats. Your opinion matters too. We want to hear what you think.
Yogi being on this Podcast is absolutely amazing. Im also very glad to learn hes a DCS veteran and seemingly a very experienced PvP player, so i cant think of someone better suited to be in charge of the flight model. Ofc he still has to act from a design perspective, but after hearing him talk here im convinced PvP is in good hands.
YOGI: Thank you so much for participating in this podcast. Thank you for all the work you have done, are doing, and will do for the project. You are an asset to the community. o7
@@SpaceTomatoToo Avenger referencing Squadrons to talk about locking players into long term play via quality pvp is so ironic. His ultra-sweaty meta-exploits went a long way toward killing that community. Someone needs to ask him about that. --Hardcore Squadrons guy that saw it firsthand.
Tomato, Avenger_One, and SaltyMike are the 3 biggest content creators in this game (for me at least). I would absolutely LOVE to see them Immortalized in S42 as characters as storyline or even tutorials. Maybe something like Avenger_One as a aerospace combat mentor of some sort, Tomato as an overall tutor, and Salty as maybe a grumpy npc ally/foe that could be hired/fought or even as a contract provider… With their own voices, appearance, and likeness… Im willing to bet without these 3 content creators the game would feel more empty as far as player base and morale regarding the development of the Verse overall… Love ya’ll, and wish the best! o7
@@SpaceTomatoTooreally ? - I think its more than that - its the tech starting to come together - the realization that maybe the promises are now almost real . I'd be confident too if I could suddenly now glimpse the finish line as a developer .
@@kerravon6058 is kinda a saying. They have the receipts as in a lot of what has been worked on that couldn't be talked about is not there as receipts to back up what they're saying.
Yogi is awesome! Thank you for taking the time to interact with the community on this level, a lot of the big gaming companies lost their sense of community and great games first focus. This is refreshing! Yogi is definitely the type of dude it would be great to sit down and have a beer with!
I appreciate Yogi coming out explaining the issues. I like the direction CIG is going with being more open and facing critics and having hard conversations.
@@Turican76 Completely out of context as usual. Skilled Pilots can dance around for 15 mins before a 1v1 kill. Also as a general rule If you kill someone quickly you are more skilled than your opponent. Someone offering feedback after thousands of hours of play is someone i definitely want to give CIG feedback. You may not agree with AV1s feedback, but the issues he and the PvP community raises are legit. These are the people flying the most. I haven't seen anyone saying to stick to the current flight model. MM fixes a lot of issues in the current flight model. However in it its current iteration MM needs some work. I honestly dont know why I'm pissing in the wind here. It just astounds me how people have such hate for people who genuinely want the game to be the best it can be.
Thank you and the PvP community for always trying to make the game better for us all. You all do us a great service even when faced with a lot of angry haters. It is great to see the discussion of these podcasts. This one and the one with SaltEMike and Virgjl. Keep the discussions going. A lot of us who do not have the time to play as much want to know from the guys who sit in the cockpit more than anyone else. We want to know and understand. Keep it up!
Bro, you crushed it as a damn good moderator during a pretty tense discussion around a contentious issue. Really appreciate you hosting this discussion, and I hope this leads to more informal sitdowns with devs in the future.
ok, hearing he worked with audio before and then got put on the flight model kinda made it all clear to me why MM is so bad.. he has no clue what hes doing, the old flight was made by a sim veteran.. MM is made by a audio guy.. but good for you i guees
Love the fact that Yogi mentioned Matchmaking as an issue… this is (imo) the biggest issue with dogfight right now. It is too hard for rookie pilots to find people at their level to train without getting absolutely destroyed by ace pilots who sleep in AC !
I would much rather learn from an ace than make mistakes and get lucky beating a rookie. The coolest ace pilots out there are best to train against when they are willing to tell you how to improve. The masters will see how you fly and know how to coach you. Beating another rookie in a free for all might have you create and cement bad habits
@@schlagzahne6741 Agreed, and this is how I learned too (and keep learning). But I don't believe it to be the most common way of playing a video game. Most people don't engage with others in their first 100hours of playing a game, they just take fight see if they like the game and that's it. And that's the reason why we have so few pilots with the current way it is. If you add matchmaking, have the noobs enjoying the game and then if they really like it and they want to learn, they will go and engage with others to learn.
OK>... GOT IT... 1:09:00 I see what they are doing now. Elite Dangerous, all ships fly the same, crap slow yaw, crazy fast pitch, you roll to compensate, no matter if it's an Anaconda, or a Sidewinder. They all behave the same. That's what they are changing. They are talking about flight characteristics, so, for example, some ships might yaw faster then pitch, some might roll better or worse, boost performance, top speed, yaw, shield strength, etc. all of this is set by the archetype. They have internal crappy names for groupings of performance settings, then they will further adjust individual ships after this baseline is established. Now I get what they are doing. Each ship is gonna fly differently, it's gonna feel different.
So you went from "oh they are making all ships fly the same" to "but eventually each ship will fly differently". Okay, so what are you trying to say here?
@@Aztaable Eventually they will be different when MM is done. What ever the ships are now will be gone. Each type of characteristic, be it pitch, yaw, roll, acceleration, boost, different thrusters, etc, are being put in groups of archtypes they are defining for each ship as a starting point. Those archtypes are loosely based on the role of the ship. Then they will customize each ship individually to the needs of the ship. That's what's happening.
This has been some of the most interesting MM content on RU-vid in the past week or so. REALLY enjoyed hearing Yogi's takes on the game, development, the future, etc. Thanks for making this happen!
Agreed...however a light fighter shouldnt be allowed to tank at the same levels of a heavy fighter. A 2 second burst from a main cannon should splash it quickly where a Medium and heavy fighter you need a bit more time to kill.
Great to have representatives from different stakeholders of SC come together to discuss the topic of MM. We're long past the stage of this topic of just receiving information passively from CIG. This is exactly where the topic should be. Hearing input from both the devs and the players in an open forum (thank you @spacetomatotoo!). And we can already see the fruits of this. Open and public realization that on fundamental aspects of MM, are shared. We are all on the same page - CIG with their vision and players with their expectations. The rest, tbh, are details (not to diminish the importance of them). But with realizing fundamentals are shared, then we can talk more openly and less aggressively about the spectrum of solutions at our disposal.
The thing about pips is interesting, I personally think the pips should ONLY show within "effective range" so you would still be forced to get into visual range before the pips even appear, this would keep the quality of life the pips provide and also prevent the "hud only gameplay" that comes from fighting outside of visual range. I could see this being a best of both worlds outcome.
i would love that too. Having a lag pip within range makes since. Gyroscopic sights existed towards the end of ww2 which is basically a lag pip (range is estimated by knowledge of wingspan). Getting rid of pips outright would be a mistake, at that point you might as well also get rid of radar because thats more detrimental to manual gunnery than a pip is
This was really interesting to listen to. I always wondered what a conversation between these two would look like. Good job Space on letting these guys talk. I love to hear from you, but I think you were right to just let the conversation proceed in this case. I totally disagree with Avenger on his ttk points though. I would argue that ships really shouldn't "die" but instead should become more and more disabled. I know this is really an argument for when armor and other systems come online but along with Yogi's point, it doesn't feel good to spend a half an hour and then die in 2.5 seconds. It would feel much more immersive to me to have my ship get disabled where I live but lose the battle and have to call for help to get repaired or get a lift.
Give heavy ships and their turrets special capacitors that increase energy weapon velocity and range that small ships don't get. This might be a way to balance the weapons with both a "lore" reason and improve gameplay. Ballistics wouldn't be affected but obviously still have the limitations of total ammo stored.
Faster charging capacitors and deeper ammo pools (maybe switchable ammo types) are the coolest and easiest to explain bonuses to give larger ships. Being able to switch the magazines on a large ships turrets could help as well.
Or just add flak. An aoe proximity weapon would literally solve all of this. And it’s a stated planned weapon and baked into the lore. Just. Add. Flak.
Yogi!! Thank you for taking the time to expand upon this subject with players in the community! Please come back from time to time and keep up the great work. A1 and Space as always thank you for having this conversation.
Yogi: "I like the feeling of not knowing what's happening. You know there are some FPS with no hit markers and you fire at somebody and the enemy would be knocked over behind a desk, and like is he dead, is he not dead, and you go there and the guy is not there. I like that you have to work with imperfect knowledge." Exactly! I have been saying this since freaking 2015. So why do we have so much information in our HUDs? hit markers, kill confirms, Xray vision? Jesus. There is no room for suspense and intel gathering with the direction this is going!
Big thanks Tomato for facilitating this conversation and your questions to Yogi as well. This is the kind of development communication we've been hoping for!
Holy crap!! This was awesome! Thank you, for bringing these two together! I'm a fan of both Yogi and Avenger! So, nice to be in a space that they both can come together to really talk about the flight model, combat, game design progression, etc! This was a dream show for me. So, happy that CIG supports such Frank and open communication with the community. Thanks, tomato for making this happen!
Man, Yogi is a gem for CIG to have and for us SC players. And to see him and AV1 interact and discuss ideas and hear the view of flight system in SC coming from both sides is very speciel and so awesome to hear. Thank you Yogi for being so awesome.
Great conversation. It's also a great reminder for a lot of folks out there that like to think "just change X and it will be objectively better". It's easy to forget how big of a game SC is and that changes made have to consider the FULL CONTEXT and not just for a small percentage of players in just one of the many branches of gameplay. It's all a balancing act.
I agree with A_One in that the mechanical focus of combat should be PVP. Balancing for PVP is more difficult but also more fundamental, because for PVE you can then take PVP balance and just adjust the AI competence, AI equipment, AI enemy amount, mission structure etc...
There have been some epic talks across many channels in the past few days, but Yogi throwing his hat into the ring... I didn't see that coming!! Amazing
At 1:10:50 the turret changes coming will make the Vanguard significantly more potent vs light fighters getting too close if the turrets get autogimbal.
@1:22:40 This is how you get 85% of your playerbase to ALT-F4 and never return. Yogi absolutely correct that low/fast* TTK is fun... in _Arena Commander._ PVP'ers who think Star Citizen should be _Rust in Space_ apparently have no idea how much direct harm they cause to the potential success of the game.
Conversations like this remind me why I will probably play SC on and off for years and years and years. Can't say that about many games. Much love to spacetomato, yogi, and a1 for the discussion.
I think the answer to almost ALL of these questions should be based on COMPONENTS and or engineering choices! If I throw in a HIGH Output power generator that can shove juice down the barrel of my lasers then I should get a better range and higher DPS out of them but obviously a ridiculously lower rate of fire. Vs I equip a generator that has the ability to rapidly push power down the barrel then I gain rate of fire but lose range and possible DPS. You add to this the weapon choice itself, as in the weapon only has the ability to accept x amount of power so even if you equipped a generator that has the ability to push a higher amount of power the weapon itself can't take it without perhaps damage to it in an over charge situation. The conversation on the HH vs fighter range for instance. If a squadron of fighters shows up and is equipped appropriately that they can switch to long range mode and its upto the HH crew to recognize this and also shift power accordingly to either increase weapons range or dump all the extra power into their shields which cause zero damage from the fighters coming in. There is NO end to possibilities if this is adjusted through components which makes all of it player decisions.
Interesting topic. Yogi is right Star Citizen is a PVE game that allows PVP not the other way around. For A1, all he mainly does is PVP so I can see where his confusion lies.
I dont think tomatoe realizes how much this video is about to blow up. This is finally a statement about the game not being a pvp murder hobo fest like eve, and instead being pvevp
They have been saying that for years. How are ppl still not clear about that? Oh, it's because there are no safe zones, and the only thing those people can think of is how they are going to die anywhere they go.
I will add to the many here. I'm always a fan of these types of conversations. I love the process of development, I love Devs talking about things. This was a good one. And thank you to anyone that had a hand in it. And I hope Yogi got at least a little Helldivers time in after.
This was super interesting, thank you for the talk! I'd love to see more conversations like this one, with the understanding of course that it's all a bit off the cuff and maybe not the 'official' final word on a subject. I'm still not convinced about MM with regards to light industrial. It's still the case if you're in a light industrial and any other kind of ship appears, you have already lost the engagement, nothing you do matters. You can't run, you can't fight and it doesn't matter if your shields are good, they can take all the time in the world just wearing them down. Generally, if you're in a light industrial ship, you don't have that many resources, so you probably don't have escorts. Still very keen to see how that pans out. That all said, I like most of what Yogi said. It feels like it's in good hands. The tricky part will be making PvP enjoyable for for both 'P's, rather than just being one-sided. Ground PvP combat is just the same, boring cheese strats over and over in PvP so I hope ship combat works out better.
"This is a PVE game that allows PVP" - That is a very clear, agreeable and sensible directive. Players should always be in and engage with the environment first and if that leads into a situation where they engage each other then hat is as it should be. This very much aligns with my general attitude that PVP should be a means to an end and not a goal. Having said that, I am pretty sure many PVP focussed players wil not have appreciated hearing those words even when in the context of the game they absolutely make sense and are the correct position to take.
Yeah, Yogi corrected that statement on spectrum earlier today saying he misspoke and that they prioritize pve and pvp equally. “This was indeed misspoken on my part. My comment was part of a casual discussion on space combat and was meant to emphasis that Star Citizen is not purely a PVP-focused game, and that there are design decisions we have to balance to consider how to best support PVE scenarios and combat simultaneously. Just to be clear: Star Citizen prioritizes both PVE and PVP aspects equally, and it is crucial that we develop an experience that caters to and supports both playstyles. This should be the biggest takeaway.”
@@zipflame That is just a more political way of saying the same thing. The whole discussion was about how emphasis on PVP as a main driver is not good for the game as the audience for it is just a subset of the total player base. Of course both get the attention they need and both have their place. Facts are that in general though, while maybe louder, the "pure PVP player" is in the minority and so, for the good of the game, PVE needs to eventually be the driver (while PVP is the closer). The sidestep to EVE there was good as that game may have the pretty pictures and stories around PVP, the core of the game, where everything starts, is PVE content though. Now EVE and SC are different beasts so there is no real 1:1 compare, but the general rules of game design are the same. In the end I felt the bottom line was "If the few that excel at PVP need to lose some of their advantages (and "suffer") for the good of the game overall, then that is what happens". To draw a hard line, if CIG lost the hardcore PVP top end, i would be a relative minor number, if they fail to attract the lower end into the game (and possibly PVP) AND not retain them, then they lose big time.
@@blazemonger1 I think agree with the overall interpretation, but I think I have to disagree that his clarification is essentially the same thing as his initial comments. In the stream he made it clear that pvp was secondary to pve but his later statement clarifies that they are prioritized equally. There are of course instances like he said where decisions are made to prioritize the wellbeing of the game as a whole rather than a subset of players. But that can affect pve and pvp both depending on the situation. For example master modes is primarily meant to benefit the pvp experience. I think it’s a misinterpretation to think he means star citizen is pve or pvp first. Star citizen is an overall health first game, which could hurt pvp and pve respectively. Just my interpretation.
@@zipflameRegardless, the point to take is that the game is meant for ALL types of gamers...yet the vocal minority within the PvP community (typically the sweats) try to demand that the game be entirely about PvP and everything should cater to them...with the whole galaxy being a constant warzone pretty much. THIS is the extremism us normal players are trying to fight against
31:30 - Large shields not being effected by small weapons (example: size 3anti fighter vs size 3 shields) 1:07:35 - Archetype tuning in depth 1:08:24 Xi'an Ships mentioned. understand that theyre easy to hit but 3.23 tunings dont make up for that 1:12:17 - Mention ships that dont fit archetypes
Tomato, Avenger_One, and SaltyMike are the 3 biggest content creators in this game (for me at least). I would absolutely LOVE to see them Immortalized in S42 as characters as storyline or even tutorials. Maybe something like Avenger_One as a aerospace combat mentor of some sort, Tomato as an overall tutor, and Salty as maybe a grumpy npc ally/foe that could be hired/fought or even as a contract provider… With their own voices, appearance, and likeness… Im willing to bet without these 3 content creators the game would feel more empty as far as player base and morale regarding the development of the Verse overall… Love ya’ll, and wish the best! o7
Honestly think it's entirely braindead when PvP/Competitive obsessed people think that PvP/Competitive is what drives a game's lifespan. Look at all the dying franchises that obsessed with competitive over their actual stories and tell me that competitive is the key to future success in a game. Even competitive leagues and shows and such are dying off now because people who invested money into them are finally realising it's a load of trash designed to make a few self-obsessed people feel good about their selves. I hate when they try to have the loudest voices and control the direction of development on games, and Halo still stands as my biggest hate for developers following their whims. I don't want to see the same happen here.
When will the CONI VTOL Mode produce lift? When You turn off the Coni bottom thrusters, it drops as if no thrust is coming from the VTOL. If you turn the VTOL on and thrust directly up, Your acceleration upwards is the same as if the VTOL is not even on. A Coni In Atmosphere could use the VTOL to increase its pitch up speed for better targeting. I expect the Coni in Atmo to have its VTOL on even in combat for better maneuvering. Coni VTOL is very powerful because it does not use the same thrusters or engines to produce lift that it uses to move forward. It is a completely different VTOL than any other ships. It is Added to the Ship and not a change in direction of other engines. Coni is Special like that.
The day I heard 90% AI and 10% player. I said to myself this is a PVE game with PVP. I currently play Black Desert Online and every PVPer swore it was a PVP game. Until PVE players started hunting them like animals. Then they started doing duels for spots. Plus the game had a massive pvp karma debuff, and SC will also have a massive reputation debuff. PVP has always been a minority. It would be suicidal to create a game for PVP first. This is not fortnite or free fire. This is a simulated universe to give an immersive experience. PVE is what immerses you, and player interaction allows for emergent gameplay whether it is PVP or just players helping each other.
ROFL @1:11:36 Yogi with that cup of tea smirk... So your sayin you have that higher chance against heavy fighter then ? A1) Yes.... Yogi) smirks again without sayin it but i think he wants to say " you wont think that this patch" lol think this is where the weapon size vs shields is playin a roll. heavies wont fear lights as much unless there are many . Im liking Yogi more and more
Great episode, sir. Lots of good info. I would really like to see the devs do more of these. It's interesting to see a more loosely formatted discussion. Lots more info gets dumped. Well done, both you and Avenger_One!
Great episode/interview. Star Citizen is a very special game where we can productive discourse between the developers and its players/community members. Its refreshing to know they listen to the feedback of the players who are putting in the hours in the systems they make. Whether how much is actually integrated into the game I'm sure the devs will find a great balance, but this type of communication is great, and hopefully we see more, not just for the pvp side of things but other aspects of the game as well. Good job Tomato, Avenger great perspective from the pvp end of things, and thank you to Yogi for the inside dev perspective.
Thanks yogi for the amazing input. Really makes up for the scl. Good work as always on the game!! And thanks space youre the best loce your content keep it up!!!
I think the biggest issue SC has had in previous flight models and weapons is too much ambiguity. If I am playing DCS and I want to avoid a missile for BVR combat, I know there are well-documented techniques like notching that will always work if done correctly. In SC if I want to dodge a missile, I just continuously spam the flare noise button and the missile just zips around and will maybe hit me? This isn't something only for missiles but this is some of the gameplay inconsistencies I am talking about.
Thanks Tomato for getting Yogi and Avenger together to discus this.. I gotta say I was really salty about MM combat.. I think as of now it is slow and boring and pretty much kneecap's and drop's the skill ceiling to the floor, and I had little faith that they would actually fix this.. But after watching Yogi and Avenger talk it out, and hearing how Yogi feels about the system as it stands and how he wants to improve is makes me feel better about where they plan to go with MM.. Fingers crossed!!
Great interview Space. Was nice to hear the different view points, it still feels like all these MM discussions are missing hugely critical game systems that CIG in their own words have said, will have fundamental and critical effects on combat. Making MM like 25 percent of the overall combat balance metric. These include but are not limited to, resource management (finally brought up at 1hr 17min), ship uptime, tuning, counter repair gameplay, and many other aspects that cig have said will drastically effect things. Not to mention other systems like maelstrom, death of a spaceman (as described by CR) etc. I am also concerned that fighters are being balanced with out any real consideration to large and capital ships even at this early stage. This is a bad omen and feels like it will just set up pvp and combat players to get frustrated when the eventual rebalance comes and changes everything once again. I know they will get to it eventually but hopefully they are at least having it top of mind now while they are so focused on fighters. In short… this debate will pop up time and time and time and time again. Can't help but feel alot of drama over something that will be unbalanced by new gameplay systems coming online after 3.23.
I think UI plays a bigger role than we currently discuss for beginners especially. The UI must communicate the effective range of a weapon or a missile intuitively and precise. Balancing around weapon range by adjusting the cone spread will probably be the defining property for combat ships. It will dictate how you need to engage an enemy and what types of ships are favorable fights to pick.
Im an Freelancer PVP player. I wished they would talk more about Freelancer instead of Eve Online. Its like the Spiritual Father of Star Citizen Spacecombat.
I have concerns about how balance is planned to be done, based on feel and what is wanted. Classic current design example is the M50 and Gladius, in the old TR(thruster rating system) both ships had identical TR on the twin primary and maneuver thrusters, the main difference between these was the M50 had racing versions and Gladius had military, after that fact both had similar components in size(including maximum possible), with the m50 having slightly better power generation with twin s2(2x 2small in current sizing) power plants and Gladius max if s3(3x small). The key thing was the M50 was smaller, lower mass by almost 50%, at the cost of limited armament (2x s2 gun hardpoints and 2x s1 missiles) and no armour. It was said the m50 was the Murray Cup racer, to surpass the 350r and Razor, yet the heavier Gladius almost matches the flight performance of the m50. My concern is CIG loss of ship concern and design to feeling and what they think should happen. It's like YogiKlatt comments about the F7C Hornet, this ship even being heavier than the Gladius was marketed and designed by how it's maneuver thrusters and its gimballed primary thruster was designed to have extremely high turn rates, and slightly lower primary thruster compared to the Gladius. I get the feeling cig has lost the focus of ships being designed and modeled to meet their role, for instead spreadsheet balancing. Why did the early ships have their thrusters located in specific locations, it was to make the craft act and look like the spaceshuttle when it maneuvered, or like the B5 Fighters, where thruster placement and power actually meant something. The MSR hull design and thruster placement should make its maneuver profile much worse than it currently is. I don't know how I feel about the current focus of balancing and ship modelling. I'm very concerned this is turning SC into battlefield 2024 in space, and no the vision of Chris Roberts Freelancer he wanted to make back in the day now.
When you tell someone "This game has PVP in it" Anyone who wants pvp will see that and play. No Need to cater to them, They will find and practice so they are better than the average person. No mater how easy you make it for someone with mouse and keyboard to have a great time and easily control the ships within its limits, someone who wants to pvp will be better and focus on the pvp interactions far more than the average player.
This was exactly the discussion about MM that the community needs. Love it, and I have a lot more faith that ship combat will eventually find a satisfying and engaging stste.
8:41 this is when the ship fighting was at its best. I remember the change. Instead of shooting at the pips, I was shooting at the actual enemy ship. I remembered that era because that's when I beat Vanduul Swarm and got my "aggressor" patch.
People want to fight from as far away as they can to said getting hit themselves. You can't force close combat if distant combat is possible. "This is a PvE game that allows PvP." I've been saying this for eleven years. About time we got official confirmation. There's a difference between lowering weapon range and lowering EFFECTIVE range. Effective range needs lowered while range needs increased. Mass Effect had an overheard NPC conversation discussing it: "When you fire, you are going to ruin someone's day, either today or ten thousand years in the future!" Ballistics should have essentially unlimited range and no damage falloff in vacuum, but energy should have fairly limited range because of dramatic damage falloff. By the same token, energy weapons should have extremely high speeds, if not being hitscan, while ballistics should have relatively low speeds. This is where we get into the problems of balancing for PvP, and realism vs fun. Current real life weapons have muzzle velocities in excess of what we see in the PU, even for handguns, which are relatively low velocity rounds... Anyone, rookie or not, who attacks someone else and gets quickly killed before they can kill them GOT WHAT THEY DESERVE. That's part of combat, regardless of PvP or PvE or kill times. Increasing kill times is a good thing for players who don't want to engage in combat... Which is why PvP-centric players want it the other way around. It boosts the payout for hit and run tactics (which tend to exclusively be combat ships, not industrial or exploration ships) and lowers the ability for ships to survive ambushes. Since it's well known the majority of players are not here for combat, catering to them to the detriment of other players hurts the game overall.
