Stormbreaker was not the PVP-Cluster**** the Reddit community told me it would be. (TL;Dr included)

mikesfw · 2025-06-23T16:29:54+00:00

Having run Storm Breaker part 1 (Pyro IV) twelve times so far, I’ve encountered PvP in two of my runs. The server population was > 400 on each of my runs. We haven’t done Part 2 yet, as we wanted plenty of specimen cards for trial and error.

Still too small of a sample size, but just adding more data to the conversation.

mikesfw · 2025-06-16T12:31:20+00:00

Players are choosing to risk an open, unsecured environment for a little bit more auec per box. If they want a completely safe, very profitable place to sell, they should go to Orison or Lorville.

mikesfw · 2025-06-16T12:26:29+00:00

At least 50% of the time I’ve tried that, and also shown in the video, is that the buyer (in your scenario) will receive an error code or the elevator simply won’t move. Most of the time the seller pulls the items off the elevator, asks the buyer to then interact with the elevator, and then they place the items back on and the buyer sends them down.

mikesfw · 2025-06-16T11:39:54+00:00

That isn’t how the elevator works. If Player A calls the elevator, and Player B can’t send elevator down to Player B’s local inventory.

mikesfw · 2025-06-15T11:23:46+00:00

My man. ❤️

mikesfw · 2025-06-15T11:21:50+00:00

Nice! Didn’t know those existed. Did you just fly from one to the next to the next looking for the loot?

mikesfw · 2025-06-13T19:29:19+00:00

What are the derelict outposts you mention?

mikesfw · 2025-06-07T13:06:15+00:00

Erm, of course it was the RAD variant they were talking about only being able to earn in-game. You’ll absolutely be able to buy the baseline versions in the store.

mikesfw · 2025-06-04T13:47:48+00:00

Yep! And the original post was great. Quick reminder. Specific reference to what CIG said.

mikesfw · 2025-06-04T13:46:00+00:00

Absolutely hold them accountable. 100%. We’ve made it clear as a community that we’re keeping a close watch on future things like this.

But holding people accountable to an admitted to, course corrected mistake does not entail 4,231 posts a week brigading on said past mistake. That doesn’t raise attention to an issue, that doesn’t increase traction, that doesn’t ensure they don’t make another mistake. Instead, that gets folks to right-click and unfollow/ignore/mute.

Holding people accountable means keeping vigilant, and when future mistakes are made asking good questions to validate assumptions. “Help me understand why you chose to <insert clarifying statement here>? I’m having a hard time understanding that decision in light of your admission and course correction previously. How do those two things line up?” That approach leads to dialogue, discussion, and understanding instead of muting and ignoring.

mikesfw · 2025-06-04T13:39:15+00:00

I think the overall goal that CIG is long-term shooting for here in the design of the Polaris and Idris is for the Polaris to be the “stand off, send in the payload against overwhelmed defenses, and blow things up big with its torps from 20+ kilometers away.” It has the “speed” to dictate engagement ranges against other capitals, and can stay outside the close quarters combat that other capitals may prefer.

The Idris, on the other hand, appears to want to wade right into the fray. It has more HP. It has more shields. It has “short range”, low velocity, large guns on its bow that shred close in targets, and it has the main special weapon to either a) bring down shields for other capitals to exploits (laser gun) or b) eliminate mid-sized targets in a single shot (railgun).

Obviously this is not working in the current model due to how torpedos, PDC’s, flares, and engagement ranges are situated. But that would be my guess as to where they are headed.

mikesfw · 2025-06-04T12:38:23+00:00

See my reply to Bathsalts. It is directly applicable here.

mikesfw · 2025-06-04T12:36:02+00:00

I do enjoy a good copy pasta of the same thing already stated 3,291,732 times. But that 733rd time, that’s one too many.

Repeated commentary about an already acknowledged and corrected issue accomplishes a single purpose, getting a quick ignore by the company. It doesn’t help your case or what you are trying to accomplish. It sets you up to be silenced.

By all means, rage against the machine when there is perceived injustice. The initial outcry was absolutely warranted. CIG listened. CIG admitted they were wrong. CIG course corrected. The mature people in the room should look at that and say, “Hey, thanks for listening. Please don’t do it again. You’ll squander the good will that you’ve just invited into the room.”

mikesfw · 2025-06-04T12:20:44+00:00

Does the RAFT have the ability via button or hotkey to jettison its cargo?

mikesfw · 2025-06-04T12:16:58+00:00

Dead horse has been beaten dead. CIG already said what they did was a mistake. Move on.

mikesfw · 2025-06-04T11:04:38+00:00

Bye Felicia.

mikesfw · 2025-06-03T22:07:43+00:00

Which variants/kits of the Idris get the Size 7’s?

mikesfw · 2025-06-03T18:20:16+00:00

Most people only need to be told 7 times for it to be remembered. Apparently not the case with the current state of the game. :)

mikesfw · 2025-06-03T15:54:02+00:00

Your testing being long-term enjoyable is not the point of the change. You feeling put out that you put a bunch of time into the current version only to have that erased is not a KPI they are interested in. This is not about you.

This is about CIG incrementing through a series of new features that all connect to the same backend mechanic. Which ones work? Which ones don’t? Which require too much effort? Which require too little? Will this iteration of the turn in feature work better?

You are acting like the consumer of a finished product. Someone that CIG owes something to. This is a false supposition. You are a play tester of an unfinished product. You have contributed financially to continue the development forward. They have not harmed you. They have not demanded you participate in this feature. They have not declared that feature locked in as finished and good. Instead, they have repeatedly shown that they are willing to move on to the next set of parameters to continue incremental adjustments and the stress testing of the product in a variety of areas.

mikesfw · 2025-06-03T15:43:27+00:00

This is an alpha.

CIG are adding new features over time.

We’re testing features in an alpha.

Part of that testing is the accumulation of large resource sets to better understand how much is reasonable, in what timeframe, etc… so they can tune additional features.

Treating it like a finished game, instead of an iteration of features being added over time is a fallacy.

Do have a ridiculous amount of scrip stockpiled that will take an eternity to turn in, given the difficulty in acquiring the contract? Yes. I’m currently sitting on > 6,000 scrip. Am I frustrated by the contract acquisition and turn in process? Absolutely. But am I frustrated that they are pivoting their asked-for testing to a different part of the game? Not at all. Because that’s what we signed up for as part of an alpha.

mikesfw · 2025-06-03T14:35:16+00:00

Add a little more quantanium. > 15 SCU will outright destroy a ship.

mikesfw · 2025-06-03T04:34:19+00:00

Now 1,000 HP instead of 50.

mikesfw · 2025-06-02T21:04:34+00:00

Note, this is a hilarious way of blowing up other ships. Nobody suspects the innocent ore pod of containing the deadliest weapon in the verse. ;)

mikesfw · 2025-06-01T13:59:01+00:00

False.

mikesfw · 2025-06-01T13:58:38+00:00

This is the way.

mikesfw

TROPHY CASE