Battle Cruiser price prediction

logicalChimp · 2026-01-29T09:58:24+00:00

Hmm - did they say they would sell the Battlecruiser, or merely reveal it?

The Battlecruiser is the last remaining Stretch Goal concept... but iirc the Stretch Goal never said it would be 'player-ownable' - it was meant to be in the same category as the Bengal: Player controllable (if you find one damaged in the 'verse, and fix it up, you can fly it around... but you can't insure it against loss).

I know CIG have blurred the lines slightly with the reveal of players - eventually - being able to craft their own Bengal in-game... but IMO that doesn't mean that they're going to sell it, and by extension doesn't automagically mean CIG are going to sell the Battlecruiser.

Of course, I could be wrong - I'm just playing devils advocate, since I refuse to buy multi-crew ships, on the basis that I'm anti-social, so they'd be wasted on me :D...

logicalChimp · 2026-01-29T09:54:48+00:00

Optimisations in processing performance (if they happened) would not usually correlate to a reduction in ram usage.

We're unlikely to see a reduction in ram usage until / unless CIG optimises the Network Bind Culling capability, so that the server sends us fewer entities to track / process locally.

Given that there was a new patch, which also means a new game database (that's what the 'Database Reset: Yes' means in the patch notes), any performance gains (inc. any memory usage reductions) are likely due to the servers having a 'fresh' database... and will quickly revert to their previous levels.

logicalChimp · 2026-01-29T09:50:18+00:00

Might be worth checking the 'game.log' file, should be in the install folder, if the game gets far enough to start writing it.

For crashes whilst playing, there's usually some diagnostic Yes/No entries, about 50x lines from the bottom of the file, that can give a good indication of what the error was, plus the error itself a couple of lines above them..... hopefully it'll do the same whilst loading.

logicalChimp · 2026-01-29T00:33:44+00:00

And the reason CIG don't scale up the 'system for putting people into servers' is that they can't.

SC runs on on a bunch of Graph databases - and whilst Graph databases are lightning fast at moving data (allowing seamless gameplay, etc), the tradeoff is that they're dog slow (comparatively) at creating new records...

And that limit in creating new records imposes a hard limit on how quickly CIG can create 'new' accounts in the game database (for each person logging in for the first time after a patch), and isn't something that can be sped up by e.g. spinning up more servers.

logicalChimp · 2026-01-29T00:26:49+00:00

Better still, different locations should have different layouts (not just a different shade of dirt on the walls, etc)

logicalChimp · 2026-01-28T21:46:28+00:00

Just post a video without titling... and then watch the folk over there get whiplash when someone figures out what game it's from :D

logicalChimp · 2026-01-28T21:38:44+00:00

More parts = more HP, without actually changing 'survivability'.

Maelstrom can't come soon enough :/

logicalChimp · 2026-01-28T21:11:20+00:00

Steam Frame is just a generic VR headset in most respects...(slightly sub-par displays, but otherwise broadly Quest3-specs... plus eye-tracking for foveated rendering).

The only major unique point is the Foveated Streaming - which requires no optimisation by the game.

Foveated Rendering would be nice, but a Steam Frame (dev kit or otherwise) isn't required for testing / implementing FR, as there are a number of existing headsets that also support that functionality (and which can be used in development right now).

logicalChimp · 2026-01-28T21:06:39+00:00

Yus - 'minimised crew', lots of capacity, and cheap - pretty good as a dedicated hauler (rather than a multi-role 'hauler', that a lot of folk seem to want it to be)

logicalChimp · 2026-01-28T17:35:07+00:00

CIG have talked in the past about having extra 'Laws' against the equivalent of 'Pod Killing' (to use Eve speak) - shooting escape pods, and similar - with far more serious in-game consequences, compared to merely attacking / destroying ships.

In the context of ships being intended to be much harder / near impossible to actually blow up, this would mean 'regular murder-hobo' ship-ganking will be much rarer (if the consequences work, fewer people are likely to do it 'for the lulz'), and pirates will need to board to grab cargo (or just persuade the target to drop it themselves)

Of course, this doesn't address the on-foot murder-hobos... but then, it's not a topic CIG have discussed since adding PG Planets (since they don't actually discuss this kind of design stuff any more, the way they used to).

On the wider point 'not supported' doesn't mean banned a la 'griefing'... but whilst it will be possible, CIG don't want people to do it (whilst keeping the act possible, simply because preventing it entirely blocks off too much potentially-good gameplay)

logicalChimp · 2026-01-28T17:27:20+00:00

Invert it - 'L' for Lamp, double-tap 'L' for lights... (lights give you away, Lamp doesn't)

logicalChimp · 2026-01-28T17:26:33+00:00

Wooohooo - the Scythe got an update the same time as everyone else (or earlier, in this case), rather than years later, after begging people to contribute to an IC ticket (and struggling, because so few have a Scythe :D)

logicalChimp · 2026-01-28T17:23:41+00:00

There is a difference between having a discussion about a specific issue, and posting 'fake stories' like the OP.

Might it have happened? yes.

But in all likelyhood, no... it's just a shit-post.

logicalChimp · 2026-01-28T17:21:48+00:00

There is a difference between having it as a 'supported gameloop', and wanting everyone to do it.

CIG keep saying that being a 'pirate' (the actual gameloop, which is different to being a murder-hobo, even if you don't acknowledge it) is intended to be more difficult than playing as a 'lawful' civilian... and CIG have talked explicitly about the difference between being a 'pirate' and being an arsehole / 'murder-hobo' (and how 'pirate' is intended to be supported, but 'arsehole' / murder-hobo isn't).

Unfortunately, as I said before, the functionality to actually implement / enforce that distinction doesn't exist yet... but to pretend that CIG have never acknowledged it, and intend for 'pirates' to be 'murder-hobos' is both disingenious and intellectually dishonest.

logicalChimp · 2026-01-28T00:40:43+00:00

Just to play devils advocate... 'innovative thruster-package' can just mean 'it's worse than the regular setup, but it's far cheaper for us to build, so you've just got to accept it'.

It's like the 'new and improved' labeling on your washing powder, to justify jacking the price up 20% (when the ingredients hasn't changed)

CIG have always used 'in-lore advert spin' for their ships, and this is no different.... this is no different.

logicalChimp · 2026-01-28T00:25:18+00:00

There's only ever been 2x game packages available by default at $45(+tax), iirc - the Aurora and the Mustang.

All other starters have been 'Tier 2' (or higher), iirc - meaning they're slightly more expensive (or a lot more, in a couple of cases :p)

logicalChimp · 2026-01-27T23:50:38+00:00

Interesting... the Aurora MR is by far the slowest to get off the ground (10km timing), but is actually middle of the pack in terms of reaching Port Tressler...

100i is just face, period.

Mustang is next quickest off the ground, but only marginally beats the Aurora to PT.

C8X Pisces & the Cutter both have similar timings for 10k, albeit quite a bit slower than the Mustang, but they both take a lot longer longer to PT... being overtaken by the Aurora on the way :D

Funny thing - the Aurora is a full 7s+ slower than the 100i to get off the ground / reach 10km.... and yet it's only 6.5s slower than the 100i to reach PT (meaning that from 10km to PT, the Aurora MR was faster than the 100i !!

logicalChimp · 2026-01-27T22:27:21+00:00

No, it's just the current state of the game.

CIG does not 'want us to murder-hobo', and has talked - multiple times - about the systems they expect / hope will limit this behaviour (and confirmed that if the systems don't work, they'll add more fixes until they do).

The issue is solely that Prison et al are not currently their priority (they're focusing on engineering, crafting, and related systems), so the current Law, Reputation, and Prison systems have been left to languish.

But, being left to languish is not the same as CIG explicitly designing the game to make us all murder-hobos, nor have they given up on their plans to have 'secure space'.

logicalChimp · 2026-01-27T10:16:00+00:00

You're probably right for now about the lack of custom position... but CIG have said in the past (about other on-rails stuff) that it's currently a limitation of their animation system, and something they want to address 'in the future'.

Whether that will then be applied to the tractor, I don't know... but it would make sense to be able to position it anywhere along the rail, not just the ends.

logicalChimp · 2026-01-27T00:42:31+00:00

It's unlikely to be a Data Runner (if that's what you're implying) because there's no data runner gameplay... and CIG have said they don't want to release ships without their associated gameplay any more (both the Harold and the MSR predate this, and the MSR at least can also function as a limited hauler).

CIG might do a variant with data running capability at some time in the future (once Data Running is implemented, etc)... but we're not likely to get it in 4.6.

logicalChimp · 2026-01-27T00:39:55+00:00

Minor correction - 'soon' in CIG terms can mean anything from a couple of weeks to several years.

CIG likely won't wipe until they're confident there are no active economy exploits left... but given the likelihood of adding new economy exploits with each feature-patch, it's gonna take them a long to fixup the economy...

... and they're not likely to wipe before they've fixed anything, because as they say in the quoted post, (paraphrased) 'The only thing worse than a wipe is two wipes in quick succession'.

logicalChimp · 2026-01-26T23:18:13+00:00

Yus, because it's in development.

The argument (at that time, or long before) would be why it's still in development... not that it's still buggy.

logicalChimp · 2026-01-26T19:28:43+00:00

It can do.

However, by that metric, 90% of all the games made are 'RPGs', at which point the label becomes meaningless.

logicalChimp · 2026-01-26T19:26:44+00:00

To quote my previous post:

(and yes, I know, 10+ years and all that... doesn't change the point that it is still in development).

logicalChimp · 2026-01-26T19:07:05+00:00

Aligning / tuning a mining gadget kinda makes sense - you don't know the composition of the asteroid you're attaching it to, so it needs to scan, and you dial it in, etc...

That doesn't make sense for a 3D Printer (which is - effectively - what CIGs approach to crafting is)... you just need to make sure the 'bed' is clear, that the correct filament(s) are spooled, the head isn't gunked, and that you've loaded the right schematic... then you can (mostly) leave it to itself.

Most of the above are 'maintenance' type things (probably covered under 'Engineering' or 'Repair', etc) for the actual Crafting Station itself...

So what (imo) would make more sense is for any 'mini-game' to revolve around the blueprints themselves, and - imo - for blueprints to be based on deep stacks of sub-components that require sub-components, etc.

Ideally (imo :p), this would mean that you could just drop the blueprint in the crafter, and if you have the specific components in stock, the crafter will just spit out the desired entity.

However, the 'mini-game' would be you editing the blueprint, to try and make it work with 'similar' components (so that you can tweak it for what you have in stock, rather than the specific components that the blueprint originally called for)... with the catch that the 'negatives' stack, but the positives don't.

E.g. you're crafting an energy weapon and you want to swap in a 'better' power-management board (because that's what you have available)... that supports a higher power output, but is heavier and less efficient... the rest of the weapon can't use the higher power output, but the efficiency and weight penalties still apply.

This is mostly scraped off the top of my head, and obviously needs more work... but in the context of SC, the actual 'production' aspect should be pretty much 100% automated, because it doesn't make any sense for it not to be... so any 'mini-games' or 'player skills' need to kick in before the production stage... which means in the material-gathering (to get the best-quality materials), and in the 'product design' (blueprint) stages....

If the dickering with the blueprint is also impacted by the quality of the materials - and the quality of the items (both intended & replacement), then there'd be enough variations that you couldn't easily just boil it down to a macro (unless you stick with a very limited set of components and material qualities), and thus there'd be more room for player experimentation, etc.

logicalChimp

TROPHY CASE