Drake Buccaneer – An unnecessary nerf

Originally posted by


Ruar

Is there some way for players to know the internal ship designations, especially if they aren’t matching up with marketing designations?

We only have the marketing descriptions when deciding if a ship is something we are interested in or not.

If the ship is being tuned and balanced for a different role then shouldn’t the marketing description be updated or some other communication made to let players know what to expect?

There are quite a few ships where the design doesn’t match the marketing concept. The R.A.F.T is a good example. It’s supposed to be a ship for quick loading and unloading of cargo, basically a container forklift/crane. Then we see the ship in game and its ungainly and slow. It’s outfitted with big crew quarters for long distance hauling which runs counter to the idea of quick loading/unloading. What does saving a few minutes of loading matter for a ship that’s designed to spend 90% or more of its flying time in quantum. The R.A.F.T should be light, agile, with minimal crew, and all about moving a lot of cargo short distances in the least amount of time. Otherwise why bother with the open container area design?

There was recent talk about offsetting more cargo space with a corresponding inability to access components. That’s not in the marketing description so how are players supposed to compare ships if the internal descriptions don’t match the public facing marketing descriptions?

It’s very frustrating to get a ship only to find out later its going to be very different from the original description. We get things change but it often feels like we aren’t being told what changes are happening.

It sure would be nice if there was some kind of dev blog that talked about how MM are changing ship roles, what internal verbiage is being used to implement MM, and then a list showing the current direction for each ship.

You can read what the ship sales pages say and they are usually kept up to date and they also have that big fat disclaimer that data for them might change if the gameplay requires it. I just checked the Buccy’s page and I don’t see anything that contradicts the current MM tuning.

The issue with the RAFT that you describe feels rather being based on yet missing features (mass of cargo and objects inside the ship object container adding mass). And this is true for several parts of the game. The game is not finished, systems are missing and things still change. That’s why it’s labelled Alpha and that’s why we have big fat disclaimers on every sales page. I usually don’t like to pull back on that explanation but it does apply here.

As for dev blogs, we do sometimes have posts written up by community management (Patch Watch, etc.). But personally I am not that much of a fan of full blog articles … it is super easy to forget WHEN they were written as this disregards that the game has moved on since then. I often enough get quoted on things that were said years ago (old IFCS docs come to mind) … they treated as the ultimate authority in discussions whereas they are just momentary records of the development at that specific time. And it is important the game can advance and is not hindered by a document that was written years ago. Sorry for the excursion, back to the blog: A dev blog describing master modes and how it affects gameplay would probably be written by me … but I rather focus on development and occasionally drop by in community portals like Spectrum to explain a few specific things for the interested few.

Parašykite komentarą

Ar esate pasirengę pradėti Star Citizen kelionę?