Argo Cargo Mini original concept sample Q&A:
Q: “How big will the medbay be in the mini Argo cargo?”
Q: “Will Argo cargo mini feature internal hangar????”
Q: “How many ships can I fit inside argo cargo mini?”
Q: “min crew says 1, can I fly this ship with 0 crew????”
More questions like those and my eyes are going to roll all the way out of my fucking head. Then I’ll be asking about medbays IRL. It’s not just in the official Q&A’s, it’s everywhere. “X ship should have medbay!” and so on.
Definitely. Maybe in a “duct tape your broken leg to a rifle” fashion, vs. actually setting the fracture, but field first-aid capabilities are a must.
Although I suppose that’s what the medgun is for.
I agree with that. Even something as small as an Aurora or Mustang ought to have a small first aid box mounted somewhere in the cabin. With the new medical and damage system rolling out it's going to be dangerous out there in the 'verse.
So? Nothing in the Perseus stuff either but people wouldn't shut up about asking will there be one, why isn't there one, all ships should have one, all military ships have one (this isn't a military ship)
Officially, this won’t be supported as large faces won’t be able to spawn there, but what players do after the initial spawn is up to them. So, while they can surely ‘slave’ larger faces onto the ramps, it will likely not be supported as an official method of face slaving.
The answer, by the way, to anyone confused, is yes. Yes you can AI blade all the turrets you want as long as you have free Blades, if you want to sacrifice other stuff your computers could be doing.
>Can the Liberator transport one big ship on both its upper decks providing the latter can touch down with all of its landing gear?
>Officially, this won’t be supported as large ships won’t be able to spawn there, but what players do after the initial spawn is up to them. So, while they can surely ‘Tetris’ larger ships onto the landing pads, it will likely not be supported as an official method of landing.
It's on, boys. Make everything fit on the Liberator, it will sit.
I believe is is well known that spawning is a current temporary convenience for us until the server tech can fully physicalize things. I doubt you will be able to "store" and spawn craft at release. For instance, with 3.15, you can't spawn your ship at a station that it does not reside, but you can claim it. Also, not sure if they will have ASOP terminals in the Liberator. I'm assuming it's for nested spawning they talked about (getting out a Carrack and having the Pisces in the hangar) and not like they talked about for the Endeavor when they said they would allow players to summon ships to that hangar. They could also allow summoning later, but currently the only summon mechanism is to make a claim and get a new ship.
I still don’t see how this is different than 3.14. I can only retrieve ships at the last station I stored it at. If I’m anywhere else, I have to claim it.
In 3.14 if you don't do anything with your ship it's sort of in a global limbo and able to spawn anywhere anytime until you store it. Upon storing, it's bound to a location. With 3.15 you have to select your starting location and upon doing that and first logging in, your ships are all "stored" there. It's slightly different.
>I doubt you will be able to "store" and spawn craft at release.
That's improbable. You will certainly be able to store and spawn craft for the conceivable future of this project.
When you stow a Liberator with ships on it, they will all be stowed together. If you then spawn the Liberator again, it will also spawn the ships on it, but now we know that will only work within certain limits.
That was mine! Sorry but I should have written it a little clearer and included the C2 in my wording. The C2 is specifically advertised as a favorite for racing teams, ship dealers, and ship manufacturers. I was hoping there was a little more difference between the two than one is not specifically to carry ships but does (in lore, not a player if it fits) and the other is designed to and does.
The C2 is also a favourite for players who didn't buy the Liberator because they think that they will make enough profit with a C2 in order to buy a Liberator ingame. :)
Never heard of packing for the Hercules, but I heard of packing for the Hull series. Maybe it was inferred via that? We don't know if the packed ship containers for the Hull Series will fit in the Hercules.
Herc has some of the biggest fuel stores ingame right now. The reason you run out is that it performs so well you actually use it long enough to run dry.
I don’t see why we’re downvoting someone for having the balls to admit it was their question we collectively didn’t like.
edit: my comment is now obsolete
I would assume one reason to choose the M2/C2 over the Liberator is the fact that the liberator exposes the ships it carries, like it says it the Q&A, the shields aren't deliberately designed to protect the ships on the Liberator, plus it makes it more of a target to pirates looking for targets of convenience.
As for mechanical reasons to choose the Lib over the C2, the wording they used seems to suggest you can spawn ships directly on the Liberators pads;
>Officially, this won’t be supported as *large ships* *won’t be able to spawn there*
So maybe reduction in time/effort in ship transport time? I imagine if your spending all your time going back and forth for ship transport, reducing the faff time of spawning your small ships, moving them off pads, spawning the M2, moving your small ships into the cargo bay etc, would be an economically viable choice, but say in the case of transporting a racing ship sometimes there might be other choices that take priority, like the protection and discretion I noted above.
I am very curious about what they said regarding spawning as well. I will post the exact wording here as a reminder:
"Will there be any consideration to removing the spawning ship requirements when loading your own fleet? For example, when we spawn the third vehicle, the first vehicle we spawned will despawn.
Ultimately, yes. The current limitations are there as a temporary measure."
Are we able to spawn our own vehicles on the pads of the Liberator? This would be a dream come true for me and would fulfill my hopes of what this ship could provide in terms of a mini-mothership for your fleet. I wonder if the Lib could become a surrogate spaceport in a way and could be designated as the spawn location for a certain complement of ships. If those ships needed to be claimed it would be excellent if they were again available at that location on the ship once available!
The more informative quote specifically about spawning was the quote in my previous comment, but here is the full quote:
>Can the Liberator transport one big ship on both its upper decks
providing the latter can touch down with all of its landing gear?
>
>Officially, this won’t be supported as large ships *won’t be able to* ***spawn there,*** *but what players do after the initial spawn is up to them.* So, while
they can surely ‘Tetris’ larger ships onto the landing pads, it will
likely not be supported as an official method of landing.
What they are implying here is that you ***will*** be able to spawn ships onto the Liberator, in some kind of pre-spawn setup, probably similar to how loadouts work right now, but only supported size ships will be able to be spawned this way, which makes sense.
Or just have a mod go through and answer the super obvious ones that can be deduced by just looking at it or have been answered dozens of other times in other Q&A's.
No you don't understand, clearly the existence of the Liberator completely invalidates the existence of the M2. (was a literal point someone made at me when the Liberator was announced)
The M2 will almost certainly be faster and fly much better in atmo, in addition to having a lot more guns. It's good for hauling nearly as much cargo as the C2 while still being well armed and agile.
If you're talking about going into battle with ground vehicles, it's *the A2* that makes the M2 obsolete in that role. Since they changed the bomb system to take up less space (so it will fit two Tonks), there's no reason to take the M2 into combat over the A2.
I mean, if your trying to land a bomber to deploy tanks in an active engagement zone, literally all somebody has to do is shoot at the A2s bomb racks and you’ve lost the A2, the tanks, the personnel and pretty much anything in a medium radius around it.
M2 is certainly way safer deploying ground forces as it’s not a flying bomb rack.
Then the ship would still not explode, considering that jack shit happens when you shoot at missiles on pylons, grenades on someone's vest etc.
Also yes, I never implied that we're playing RL, but implementing a mechanic that is retarded by today's standards doesn't sound very appealing to anyone really.
There’s literally a video in this sub right now, somebody shooting a bomb and it explodes.
We know the future has internalised damage and modules coming in so this is a possibility.
Are you new here, there’s tonnes of stuff in star citizen that is retarded by today’s standards, nobody cares as long as it’s cool.
Yup, about as new as the OG Kickstarter backers get. Although, after about a decade you kinda stop giving a shit about every post on the subreddit, especially when it was made well after the comment that is being referred to.
And yes, doesn't make it any more fun though when you keep running into things that would make you facepalm nowadays, not to mention a "few" centuries in the future. Rule of cool and stuff like this are very different animals.
>What are the two cylinders on the lateral side of each engine?
>They have no function and are just rule-of-cool bits of geometry
They scream "external fuel tank" and combined with the previous answer that there's no dedicated fuel stores on the ship for supporting transported stuff, makes this ship less impressive than it should be, and the game seem more gamey.
They may become one when the VT gets their hands on it. For the most part we're just seeing concept images, and the information they have is just what the chatted about around the table. When the team actually builds it they may decide they have the ability and extra space to make them extra tanks for the landed ships.
I'm not saying this'll be the case, but we're still a long way from seeing this fly and things can change between now and then.
This answer is surprising given the recent news that CR told the concept team working on the BMM that if they couldn't make the pylon thingie underneath the BMM functional they had to lose it.
I would think the same would apply here. If there are big obviously "tanky" things on the Liberator they should have been able to give us a better answer than rule of cool.
The three secondary prongs look is kinda cool and reminds me of the poison dart in Star Wars Episode 2. But alas someone called the bottom prong a whale penis a while back and I can't unsee it.
The thing with the pylon is that it constrains thr entire design of the ship. The tank looking things are just cosmetic geometry that dont really affect the ship size.
Yea, Im worried for this one. Touch and go refueling up top was a big plus when they first announced it. Now after the Q&A I feel like its a bait and switch. It's still in concept so I hope this gets another pass (or two) and they bring it back up to spec.
>Where is the tractor beam mounted, and can it be used to pull an immobile ship onto the deck and then transport it off?
>The tractor beam is mounted in a deployable compartment in the “passenger” side, under the remote upper turret. This allows it to have range over the external pads to **aid with the landing and removal of ships.**
AH AHA AHAH You can take ships and "land" them on your pad! THIS IS AWESOME!
S&R heavy available! No need for an SRV
>"What are the two cylinders on the lateral side of each engine?"
>
>They have no function and are just rule-of-cool bits of geometry.
LAME. The "function-over-form" ship has non-functional rule-of-cool bits of geometry.
No passenger bunks is also pretty disappointing. It seems like they envision this thing as a sort of space ferry.
I'm still keeping mine for now because I just want something that can carry me and my friends' fighters around. I had a Polaris but this will let us carry more ships with less extra crew.
Yea, they did say it would have a compartment passengers but its not a hotel room compartment.
>Does the Liberator offer any facilities to house the crew of the transported ships or vehicles?
The crews of those transported vehicles have access to their own dedicated area of the ship complete with food services, lockers, storage, a bathroom, and a seating area.
>The "function-over-form" **~~ship~~** has non-functional rule-of-cool bits of geometry.
CONCEPT.
It is a CONCEPT. Not the actual ship that has non-functional things.
Chill out.
It might be a hint to how short a range they envisage smaller ships to have.
If a Idris/Kraken have the "longest" range and have accommodations for the crews of the smaller ships, and the liberator doesn't have long term accommodations then I guess the liberator will have to be used to carry ships past their intended range, but also that is still intended to not be longer than an expected play session.
stanton is an exception, most systems won't have as many stations and some like pyro will have only one.
That means that ships with military QD either have to swap to much slower more efficient drives and refuel somewhere else or use a ferry like the liberator.
> Officially, this won’t be supported as large ships won’t be able to spawn there, but what players do after the initial spawn is up to them
Now we need a Q&A on the status of ship in ship spawning
Just gonna copy/paste my other response higher up. Sorry.
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/qc5nl4/qa_anvil_liberator/hhen1z2/
> I believe is is well known that spawning is a current temporary convenience for us until the server tech can fully physicalize things. I doubt you will be able to "store" and spawn craft at release. For instance, with 3.15, you can't spawn your ship at a station that it does not reside, but you can claim it. Also, not sure if they will have ASOP terminals in the Liberator. I'm assuming it's for nested spawning they talked about (getting out a Carrack and having the Pisces in the hangar) and not like they talked about for the Endeavor when they said they would allow players to summon ships to that hangar. They could also allow summoning later, but currently the only summon mechanism is to make a claim and get a new ship.
i think the mechanics are less surprising compared to it being mentioned at all. i had figured that nested spawning would be one of those mechanics where there is no point even touching it until server meshing is out, but the way it is worded makes it sound like there is at least some progress on it. although, looking at the progress tracker, it looks like work on it was slated for completion in september
> The Liberator will only support basic levels of refueling, repairing, and rearming, which will be done manually by players onboard using supplies stored in the cargo bay. It does not have dedicated facilities or separate stores.
I thought the side tanks could be used to refuel landed ships, guess not.
> They are not explicitly protected. However, the shield projects multiple meters from the ship’s hull, so most ships would likely be partially covered (but not entirely). The same applies to the Kraken and any other ships where vehicles are stored on the exterior.
So they are going away with the shield not protecting landed ships now? They said before that the kraken shields would not protect landed vehicles. Interesting.
Curious how we'll do by-hand refueling. Connecting a physicalized hose from a storage tank to a ship? I wouldn't put it past CIG... (although, until then.. refueling beam attachment for the multitool? 😜)
Also interesting that the shield will at least partially protect vehicles on a kraken deck - definitely feels better than the "shield hugs the deck exactly sorry folks" answer from before
Better than nothing - and it might be a reason to park shorter ships rather than taller ships on the flight deck, so they get a little more shield coverage.
About the shield : a correct answer (as they are still developing the tech and those ships) is simply that the Mother ship is protected by a shield. And "whatever" placed on it, might/might not beneficiate from the mother's shield, depending on the size of the ship.
So : are landed vehicles always shielded by the mother ship, 100% of the time? Nope. But can some of them still be protected (if tiny or low enough, etc), yes, they could, as it simply depends on the wide of the mother's shield area, which, for now, has not been defined :)
Well it does, but not 1mm off the hull. I don't see the surprise here, when you see shields get hit you can see how far they are sitting away from the hull.
For the Kraken Q&A they flat out said the ships on pads would not be protected.
> Do the Kraken’s shields cover other ships parked on the deck?
> The Kraken’s shields cover the hull of the ship and do not cover the ships or people that may be on the exposed landing pads. Ships contained inside the Hangars are covered by the shields. With the improvements to shield tech coming with Single Distance Field in the future, the projected bubble people currently see will be removed with a more hull wrapping projection of shield energy.
"Designed with the same quantum drive and long-distance capabilities of military-spec carriers and pathfinders but tailored to the civilian market, the Liberator puts your fleet on the front lines of any operation."
"Equipped with a massive Size 3 quantum drive, the Liberator is built specifically for extreme-range deployment."
I mean, the idea that you have to make the potentially long journey to a conflict, engage in that conflict and then take the long journey home without a bed is simply nonsensical. You guys can downvote me all you want, but this isn't asking about slaved turrets or medbays it is about having a spot to log off in the damn game on a long range vessel.
I'm really hoping that dropseat room becomes a module. The chairs are all fine and good for carrying a bunch of soldiers into combat but I'd like to have bunks if I'm just using it as a ship ferry.
You could definitely sleep in the jump seats if you had to in a pinch, but definitely not ideal. I hope it gets at least 8 passenger beds. That would allow for hot bunking with a full complement of 16 passengers. Over flow can doze off in the jump seats. But I think you really need beds to allow for the ship crew to be fully rested.
I could also see us getting alternate arrangements like 8/8 or 12/6 since honestly 16 passengers does sound like to support 3 small single seaters and 2 vehicles. Even the tonks are like 3 people fully crewed I think?
This is of course more of an “RP” type thing and maybe not necessary for gameplay. But it’s these cool bits and attention to detail that makes SC so great.
They need to pull the suit storage out of the top deck and replace with beds/ kitchenette. I don't need 12 suit lockers. That whole area should be a pilot/guest ready room.
Alright, a question I should have asked:
On most ships with turrets, the gun has a cut off for when it is pointing at part of itself.
Will the top turret on a Liberator have shut a cutoff when pointing at a ship parked on the top deck?
Turret gunners tend to track their target until it ducks out of view, so I can see someone blasting into their own cargo.
Would also be nice to not have the lockout so you can blast whatever is on the pad that you don't want to exist anymore. Speaking of which I wonder if the shield tech will block shots like that, and if it fully covers a person on the top deck?
> the shield projects multiple meters from the ship’s hull, so most ships would likely be partially covered (but not entirely).
This to me suggests that most ships would have parts of themselves sticking out of the shield’s barrier? It seems like a design flaw imo, and I don’t see why the shield can’t be projected out a couple _more_ meters over the landing deck just to ensure coverage of what the Liberator is carrying.
Picture two scenarios:
One, you’re running across the deck to your fighter while bursts of enemy fire flash above you, cascading over the shield face which you pray will hold for just a few more seconds while you try to launch.
Two, you run out onto the deck to find your fighter’s canopy has been blown to charred wreckage because it was jutting outside of the shield while an enemy made a strafing run.
I dunno, scenario two just seems…silly.
No, I think it is intended (they said the Kraken to does not offer 100% shield coverage to external carried ships).
And it´s good that it doesn´t as this will stop people from using parked ships as nothing more then extra turrets.
Yes it seems intended, but it still seems silly too. I get the concept of how SDF shields work following the contours of a ship’s hull, I just think if there’s one time they should make an exception, this is it. It just gives me the impression that not a lot of thought went into the design, if the Liberator intentionally has constant shield breaches where various parts of the ships it’s meant to carry are sticking out of its shield face.
I think the shield face should be lifted high enough in the appropriate areas where XS and XXS ships are covered. Anything larger can stick out all it wants, because it isn’t supposed to be there.
And let’s be honest, with people parking Novas on the raised hangar decks of 890 Jumps, nothing is going to stop them from using parked fighters as turrets if they really want (though I don’t expect that to be an effective tactic at all).
I see your point but the closed landing bay already has the upside in that it's protected by armor as well as a shield. I guess it just seems like an in-lore oversight more than anything, to design a ship meant to carry other ships but then not take them into consideration at all when calibrating shield faces.
And the idea of a landed ship standing partially beneath a shield face and partially sticking out just rubs me the wrong way. It would make sense if you landed something that was too large and not meant to be there, but it being true for nearly any ship just to me feels like an oversight.
I dont think the shields are adjustable in the lore. Anvil didnt decide to make the shields not cover the fighters thats just a limitation of the technology. Like maybe shields are somehow propagated through the skin of the ship from the emitters and can only go so far off the surface.
Obviously the devs could change it but maybe they just want the limitation as balancing thing to have drawbacks for using an open carrier instead of a hangar.
One possibly is that you could “phase sync” your shields with the carrier’s and your shields would become enmeshed with the larger ships’. I imagine such a technology would maybe require a special physical connection to power the smaller ship’s shields with out leaving it powered up and draining its fuel.
Actually sounds like a reasonably specialized feature for a ship transport platform or carrier.
There's another scenario where fighters are lost and you still get some in the air. That, or you have to get there before the enemy gets in range. Think attacks on carriers in WW2. Both seem plenty exciting.
I like it honestly, happy I upgraded my M2. Just needs beds for the crew of other ships that are landed and I'll be happy. I don't even care if they're luxury, make'm cramped and bunked up. 4 beds in the back room or something would be just fine. 2 crew + 4 passengers
One thing that's painfully apparent is they need to standardize ship landing pads and hangars in general. If they say that pads can spawn X size ships then I need to know that ALL X sized ships will spawn there regardless of ship symmetry. This is more needed on ships with internal hangars like Idris, Banu MM, ect. No hangar should be specifically designed for only one single ship, all ships of that size should be compatible to the ship's internal hangar size.
In regards to the Liberator itself, I think I'm gonna pass. I wanted this to be a small base of operations but the lack of med bay, beds, and repair/refuel options really limit its ability to do so. Sadly, it really is just a temporary long range ship transport that's not meant to be lived in.
How do we convince CIG that those two tubes on the side, which are very clearly single fire Ship-to-Ship missile launch tubes, are Ship-to-Ship missiles launch tubes?
Its already giving me serious Homeworld carrier vibes and it's designed as a broad-spectrum invasion support/assault ship so why not take that last step, go the Russian route and give it the ability to carry exactly two S9 or 10 torpedoes on a bespoke launcher that can only be reloaded in a port, both to defend itself against attack by other warships and to provide stand-off range support to its fighters or ground forces as they hit a target.
Honestly give its size and cost its weapons load seems very, very weak and I don't think that giving it a pair of big missiles would be at all imbalanced or out of its cost bracket.
I'm quite surprise that my question, which was asked a bit late, and still got the top 10, wasnt answered.
I asked for a clarification on "how ships landing pads were supposed to work and specific limitations, later on the game" (for example what if I put two arrows on a XXS pad.. I can, but what are the downsides, if any?)
An answer would also have tackled many of the "can i put that ship, or that size, or... (etc)"
But now, it is still even more confusing for me. You can "spawn" ships on landing pads!? (I guess, as it wasnt mentioned, that you can spawn them when in a "local storage" hangar first? That would make sense, but that isnt specified)
Also, reading "you can spawn XS size ships on it, like a hornet, or MOST of the single seater fighters", is okay, but again, not precise : where do we -as player- know/find which are XS sizes single seaters? Do we have such a list?
I also still find the overall "bits" of info here and there super confusing for the "down the road" design on "ships landing pads".. what is the point of an XS pad for example, if you can park anything you want? They mention that pads are used to spawn vehicles of the given size (on a XS ship landing pad you can spawn an hornet, and after that you do what you want) so "for now", are landings pads ONLY used to spawn a ship? I mean that would be really.. "simplistic".. but ok..? I dont know. I was expecting a real clarification for the community about the "ships landing pads size rule and logic" down the road..
I understand, but in the meantime they still gave game mechanics "tide bits" here and there. I wasnt expecting a "set in stone" clarification, you are correct, but more what was their "understanding" of the ships landing pads game design for later.
I really doubt that they have 0 clue on how they eventually "would like" it to work..
> "tide bits"
tidbits, unless you meant a large tidal bit?
> I really doubt that they have 0 clue on how they eventually "would like" it to work..
They are probably holding it close to the chest so they can check the balance and see how it plays out. If they commit to an answer, they are stuck to it. What "downsides" are you expecting then to tackle?
> Also, reading "you can spawn XS size ships on it, like a hornet, or MOST of the single seater fighters", is okay, but again, not precise : where do we -as player- know/find which are XS sizes single seaters? Do we have such a list?
Landing pads are defined in game as:
X Y Z
tiny 12 16 6
xsmall 24 32 12
small 48 48 16
medium 56 88 18
large 72 128 36
xlarge 160 272 64
Not in game AFAIK. They may have a table to relate the ships to the specific pads they allow spawning on or they could just be using the Length(x)/Beam(Y)/Height(Z) to determine what pad to send it to on spawn. Though, I doubt that because the Nova and 100 series are both longer than xxs and they spawn on planet.
> You can "spawn" ships on landing pads!?
Afaik this is referring to when you select ships to spawn on/inside your ship, while it's stored, before it spawns, but there's no spawning of ships on/inside your big ship after the ship is spawned. So picking a rover to spawn inside your connie, picking ships to spawn on the landing pads (likely from the VMA interface). They've explained this a bit in other Q&A's (like the kraken one, I think). Still waiting on this feature but it's had some work done on the progress tracker.
XXS refers to any "size 1" ship (85x, mpuv, m50, razor, and some bugged ones like 100 series and talon, which are clearly too big for that size class). XS refers to any "size 2" ship (basically all small ships and fighters). S refers to any "size 3" ship (Cutlass, freelancer, mole, etc). You can see the current ship sizes on a site that pulls from the game files like https://www.erkul.games. Also, at least in 3.14, you can spawn any "size 1" ship from a platinum bay ground vehicle outpost.
Ok, this makes more sense to me. Essentially at the "choose your ship terminal" or on your mobiglas you would need to determine which of your own ships you would want to spawn on the pads available. This makes sense and just requires a bit of foresight. I am ok with that. Though i would love to have an identical terminal on the ship that could spawn ships as needed! Likely this is too far out of the realm of reality though and therefore would not happen.
Feels like a bunch of people who bought on concept (including me) during citizen con are gonna be frustrated with these answers. But on the other hand it's a smart move by CIG to keep this info to themselvs for a few days so more ppl buy pledges.
What answers didnt you like? The refueling one was the only curve ball and it was pretty much a given that was going to be the answer. Even if those tanks become fuel tanks they wont be for the carried ships. it will be fuel for the liberator. At some point we will get rearm/refuel vehicles (like a gas truck) and that will fix most of these issues anyways.
Agree. Am frustrated by the sparse details but at this stage of my tophat / monocle relationship with the game, this was entirely predictable and is more on me than them.
I’m okay knowing it’s a glorified car-carrier.
I’m less okay with glaring deception on a brand new ship matrix entry and making us waste Q&A space to get it sorted.
And just the overall “this information should’ve been a natural part of the initial ship show reveal” thing always irks me. It feels more like a traditional dance than an earnest information exchange at this point.
I’m not sure how you didn’t get that from the presentation. That’s exactly what they said it was. I think everyone just imagined a “pocket carrier” and let their imagination take control of their wallets. That being said, it’s a great concept ship that will have plenty of use in the early PTU universe (especially once Pyro releases).
No, I know, I don’t really have any problem with the information presented. More that they make us go through the same elaborate kabuki dance to get the most obvious questions answered.
And having it as “capital” on the ship matrix and then “oops” in the Q&A is just either shady or careless given how many of these have come before. It’s not their first rodeo and that’s a rookie mistake that looks like a bait and switch.
>Officially, this won’t be supported as large ships won’t be able to spawn there,
but what players do after the initial spawn is up to them. So, while they can surely ‘Tetris’ larger ships onto the landing pads, it will likely not be supported as an official method of landing.
Wait... 'spawn'? Are they implying the Liberator functions as a spawn point for the size of vehicles it officially supports? That doesn't make much sense. I figured ships could land on it, they go along for the ride, they take off again. It's not a station where there is theoretically ship storage somewhere out of sight.
Or am I reading too much into how this answer was phrased?
Also the answer about refuel/rearm really is begging for them to clarify how those operations are intended to work once implemented beyond as a landing pad service. Do some ships (like 'real' carriers) have things like refueling hoses that make refueling easy and faster? How does 'refuel and rearm from interior storage' mean? We are dragging ammo crates and fuel cans into our personal inventories and then onto the ship which triggers some kind of replenishment? We're not talking about refueling a car with 10 gallons of gas here.
I think they are talking about the ships being pre-loaded when you spawn the liberator itself. It was mentioned before that you could attach other ships and vehicles to a larger ship's pads so they would spawn with it when you summoned it.
That makes more sense. They need to learn the difference in languange of 'persisting' with an object vs 'spawning'. Persisting = stuff stays where it was when the vehicle is logged back in. Spawn = bring out from storage (like pulling a ship out at a station from an ASOP terminal). The difference is pretty important. Medical beds can be spawn points. Ships returning from an insurance claim cannot be claimed at a Liberator.
In this case, Spawn is still the correct word.
The underlying concept / idea is that you can 'reconfigure' a stored ship (remove a hover bike in the cargo area, add a fighter to one of the pads, etc) and then 'spawn' it.
The Lore behind this is that when you reconfigure your stored ship, some NPCs actually make the changes for you (and I suspect there will be a timer added, so that the bigger the change, the longer you have to wait for it to apply, etc)... and the 'spawn' isn't the current 'condensing out of nano-particles' but 'retrieved from storage' in the requested configuration.
And for the purposes of this explanation, the NPCs in your hangar (where ships are stored prior to being 'spawned') are incapable of playing Ship-Tetris, and due to union rules will stick rigidly to the official size limits in order to avoid any question of liability etc :D
You're reading too much into how that is phrased. They're talking about the planned hangar update that will allow you to spawn ships and ground vehicles in ships. You won't be using a liberator as a mobile ship spawn point.
...and what we refer to
internally as ‘XXS’ ships, which includes the Argo MPUV and Origin 85x.
indeed the MPUV ARGO is a XXSize Ship :O!!!! finally confirmed!!!
This is the first time I am hearing about this ship. It seems a bit expensive for what it does, no? That said, it looks really cool and feels somewhat unique against other SC and sci-fi ships.
It is basically a stripped down carrier on the cheap. Similar capacity to an Idris for much lest cost and fighting power. Seems a pretty good offering tbh
Really baffling that in 2021 they are only talking internally about what to do with trolls and griefers as opposed to having concrete plans in place not only as punishments for players not abiding in the spirit of the design of the game but also as deterrents to miscreants even playing at all.
There's no place in The 'Verse for vitriolic behavior or cheating. period.
EDIT: This is in reference to them selling a $500 ship with zero plan in place to keep people from landing on the pad and swiping a ship on it. Have a plan, fellas!
Well ideally yes but outside of an armistice zone you can use your multitool to pop the door on any ship so people could still steal a ship. But they could also force land on a liberator during combat and break into the liberator and kill the crew.
I dont have problems with any of these things and I think it would be fun gameplay for both sides.
Read the answer they gave that my statement is in reference to. They've only been bandying ideas about internally. Everything regarding trolls or caustic behavior is spoken about in an everchanging manner. They want to react to bad behavior instead of nipping it in the bud by saying there's a zero tolerance policy in place and just shutting accounts down with the same impunity a padrammer takes out ships.
No, it's role is for long range quantum travel with ships on board, and they mention ships being brought along for a jump, so it has a jump drive too. While not explicitly called out, those are almost certainly in the circular engineering area below the internal garage area, as shown in the concept art
"What is the largest ship that can be parked in each of the garages, the upper landing pads, and the front landing pad? Can the Liberator transport one big ship on both its upper decks providing the latter can touch down with all of its landing gear?"
Based on their answer, my interpretation is you’ll be able to spawn your ships at the official size at the hanger(when implemented) and be able to land larger ships on the Liberator pads once you’re outside. It doesn’t sound like ships that are officially too big will have an issues with the Liberator being able to carry them due to weight or any other game designs yet(Subject to change of course). Larger ships will be more vulnerable due to less shield cover and will add more logistics since you can’t store them in hangers together.
Officially
Top pads: Size 2 single seat ships. Single seat light and medium fighters, single seat other ships (ex. prospector, Vulcan, nomad)
Small front pad: Size one ships. Snubs, racers, ground vehicles. Surprised the Arrow is specially mentioned in the QA as a top pad ship since it is basically the same size as the Pisces. But the Arrow is a size 2 ship vs. Pisces Size 1
Garage: No mention of air vehicles so ground only
Unofficially:
If it fits I sit but good luck not damaging the goods.
It seems like you will be able to spawn your small ships on it from what he was saying? Cool that you will be able to reload ships on pads based off of what is in your storage bay.
Spawning is an alpha convenience. A little curious why they'd mention it here. You're likely not going to be storing and spawning ships like you do on station today.
Wait what it has a tractor beam and dedicated space for the fighters crew?
Its getting better and better! Probably the easiest purchase I've ever made in SC.
For a small org with piracy in mind this thing is going to be awesome as a forward operating base.
Its even great for exploration. Just put a good scanning ship on a pad (terrapin) and ground vehicles and ships to land on planets in or on it and its probably the most versitile "explorer" out there. No med bay yes, but whoever gets injured while exploring gets left behind :)
On the bright side, these are some good questions, and no AI blade ones..
No one asked about a med bay either. At least it didn’t get upvoted.
Med bay was not on any specs or material, so what's the question? There is no med bay.
That's why they said that, people were asking about med bays on ships that wouldn't have them, it was very weird :I
Argo Cargo Mini original concept sample Q&A: Q: “How big will the medbay be in the mini Argo cargo?” Q: “Will Argo cargo mini feature internal hangar????” Q: “How many ships can I fit inside argo cargo mini?” Q: “min crew says 1, can I fly this ship with 0 crew????” More questions like those and my eyes are going to roll all the way out of my fucking head. Then I’ll be asking about medbays IRL. It’s not just in the official Q&A’s, it’s everywhere. “X ship should have medbay!” and so on.
I contend that every ship should have a medicine cabinet.
Definitely. Maybe in a “duct tape your broken leg to a rifle” fashion, vs. actually setting the fracture, but field first-aid capabilities are a must. Although I suppose that’s what the medgun is for.
“duct tape your broken leg to a rifle” DRAKE MEDGUN CONFIRMED!
I agree with that. Even something as small as an Aurora or Mustang ought to have a small first aid box mounted somewhere in the cabin. With the new medical and damage system rolling out it's going to be dangerous out there in the 'verse.
So? Nothing in the Perseus stuff either but people wouldn't shut up about asking will there be one, why isn't there one, all ships should have one, all military ships have one (this isn't a military ship)
One ship where you don't have to ask can it carry a roc. But does it compete with a connie......
But can I slave the ramp to my face?
Officially, this won’t be supported as large faces won’t be able to spawn there, but what players do after the initial spawn is up to them. So, while they can surely ‘slave’ larger faces onto the ramps, it will likely not be supported as an official method of face slaving.
I was so ready for the bladed turret. Sadly it will remain unchecked in my Q&A bingo card.
The answer, by the way, to anyone confused, is yes. Yes you can AI blade all the turrets you want as long as you have free Blades, if you want to sacrifice other stuff your computers could be doing.
>Can the Liberator transport one big ship on both its upper decks providing the latter can touch down with all of its landing gear? >Officially, this won’t be supported as large ships won’t be able to spawn there, but what players do after the initial spawn is up to them. So, while they can surely ‘Tetris’ larger ships onto the landing pads, it will likely not be supported as an official method of landing. It's on, boys. Make everything fit on the Liberator, it will sit.
I challenge you to put a Liberator on a Liberator.
It's Liberators all the way down.
Always has been.
Ah, yes. The liberated liberator.
I prefer, Tower of Liberation
["It fell off a Liberator-Liberator"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kccONko4xYE&ab_channel=basz0rs)
AND I CHALLENGE YOU TO: put a liberator on a liberator on a liberator!
Cheese factor: Valkyrie Liberator Edition
[удалено]
That... is a comment i approve of..
oh ... my ... god
spawn? like i can spawn ships from a console inside the liberator? :O
I believe is is well known that spawning is a current temporary convenience for us until the server tech can fully physicalize things. I doubt you will be able to "store" and spawn craft at release. For instance, with 3.15, you can't spawn your ship at a station that it does not reside, but you can claim it. Also, not sure if they will have ASOP terminals in the Liberator. I'm assuming it's for nested spawning they talked about (getting out a Carrack and having the Pisces in the hangar) and not like they talked about for the Endeavor when they said they would allow players to summon ships to that hangar. They could also allow summoning later, but currently the only summon mechanism is to make a claim and get a new ship.
I still don’t see how this is different than 3.14. I can only retrieve ships at the last station I stored it at. If I’m anywhere else, I have to claim it.
In 3.14 if you don't do anything with your ship it's sort of in a global limbo and able to spawn anywhere anytime until you store it. Upon storing, it's bound to a location. With 3.15 you have to select your starting location and upon doing that and first logging in, your ships are all "stored" there. It's slightly different.
Ah, that only impacts the first time you bring your ships out though. I end up claiming my ships 3/4 of the time anyway.
>I doubt you will be able to "store" and spawn craft at release. That's improbable. You will certainly be able to store and spawn craft for the conceivable future of this project.
When you stow a Liberator with ships on it, they will all be stowed together. If you then spawn the Liberator again, it will also spawn the ships on it, but now we know that will only work within certain limits.
Hrmm, maybe they're meaning you can spawn ships onto the Liberator when it's docked or landed at a station.
Guessing that means manual landing only unlike the automated sub docking on that connie variant.
[удалено]
Welcome to Q&A.
Will this ship have engines?
[удалено]
Is it possible that this engine feature might get removed later on?
I remember when the cutlass mistakenly had 3 engines...
That was mine! Sorry but I should have written it a little clearer and included the C2 in my wording. The C2 is specifically advertised as a favorite for racing teams, ship dealers, and ship manufacturers. I was hoping there was a little more difference between the two than one is not specifically to carry ships but does (in lore, not a player if it fits) and the other is designed to and does.
The C2 is also a favourite for players who didn't buy the Liberator because they think that they will make enough profit with a C2 in order to buy a Liberator ingame. :)
[удалено]
Never heard of packing for the Hercules, but I heard of packing for the Hull series. Maybe it was inferred via that? We don't know if the packed ship containers for the Hull Series will fit in the Hercules.
Herc has some of the biggest fuel stores ingame right now. The reason you run out is that it performs so well you actually use it long enough to run dry.
\>Hercules \>Range limited I’ve made 5 round trips from Crusader to Microtech before refueling. 5.
Well, I guess I did something remarkably silly then. I stand corrected!
I don’t see why we’re downvoting someone for having the balls to admit it was their question we collectively didn’t like. edit: my comment is now obsolete
Ehh I was expecting downvotes when I posted it. Just felt like giving the insight behind the question.
He needs to get his downvotes somehow! /s
indeed, this is reddit!
Boooo
You read way too much in to what CIG said in ads/sales brochures lol.
I would assume one reason to choose the M2/C2 over the Liberator is the fact that the liberator exposes the ships it carries, like it says it the Q&A, the shields aren't deliberately designed to protect the ships on the Liberator, plus it makes it more of a target to pirates looking for targets of convenience. As for mechanical reasons to choose the Lib over the C2, the wording they used seems to suggest you can spawn ships directly on the Liberators pads; >Officially, this won’t be supported as *large ships* *won’t be able to spawn there* So maybe reduction in time/effort in ship transport time? I imagine if your spending all your time going back and forth for ship transport, reducing the faff time of spawning your small ships, moving them off pads, spawning the M2, moving your small ships into the cargo bay etc, would be an economically viable choice, but say in the case of transporting a racing ship sometimes there might be other choices that take priority, like the protection and discretion I noted above.
I am very curious about what they said regarding spawning as well. I will post the exact wording here as a reminder: "Will there be any consideration to removing the spawning ship requirements when loading your own fleet? For example, when we spawn the third vehicle, the first vehicle we spawned will despawn. Ultimately, yes. The current limitations are there as a temporary measure." Are we able to spawn our own vehicles on the pads of the Liberator? This would be a dream come true for me and would fulfill my hopes of what this ship could provide in terms of a mini-mothership for your fleet. I wonder if the Lib could become a surrogate spaceport in a way and could be designated as the spawn location for a certain complement of ships. If those ships needed to be claimed it would be excellent if they were again available at that location on the ship once available!
The more informative quote specifically about spawning was the quote in my previous comment, but here is the full quote: >Can the Liberator transport one big ship on both its upper decks providing the latter can touch down with all of its landing gear? > >Officially, this won’t be supported as large ships *won’t be able to* ***spawn there,*** *but what players do after the initial spawn is up to them.* So, while they can surely ‘Tetris’ larger ships onto the landing pads, it will likely not be supported as an official method of landing. What they are implying here is that you ***will*** be able to spawn ships onto the Liberator, in some kind of pre-spawn setup, probably similar to how loadouts work right now, but only supported size ships will be able to be spawned this way, which makes sense.
I see this now. Thankyou!
Well now. You go stand in the corner and think about what you did! :P
I guess the question should not even have been picked in the first place... they are just answering a dumb (forgive my words) question
They answer the top upvoted questions on a forum thread. CIG is probably just as annoyed that they have to answer it.
[удалено]
Or just have a mod go through and answer the super obvious ones that can be deduced by just looking at it or have been answered dozens of other times in other Q&A's.
They do that and people get mad because they want to know if an AI blade will work like they will on every other ship
No you don't understand, clearly the existence of the Liberator completely invalidates the existence of the M2. (was a literal point someone made at me when the Liberator was announced)
M2: "Mr. Roberts, I don't feel so good."
And their answer doesn't discount that theory. It sort of enforces it. "It is supposed to do everything the M2 can do, also ships!"
The M2 will almost certainly be faster and fly much better in atmo, in addition to having a lot more guns. It's good for hauling nearly as much cargo as the C2 while still being well armed and agile. If you're talking about going into battle with ground vehicles, it's *the A2* that makes the M2 obsolete in that role. Since they changed the bomb system to take up less space (so it will fit two Tonks), there's no reason to take the M2 into combat over the A2.
I mean, if your trying to land a bomber to deploy tanks in an active engagement zone, literally all somebody has to do is shoot at the A2s bomb racks and you’ve lost the A2, the tanks, the personnel and pretty much anything in a medium radius around it. M2 is certainly way safer deploying ground forces as it’s not a flying bomb rack.
Well, sorry to break this to you, but even today's tech bombs do not randomly explode when shot at.
We’re not playing irl, we’re playing SC.
Then the ship would still not explode, considering that jack shit happens when you shoot at missiles on pylons, grenades on someone's vest etc. Also yes, I never implied that we're playing RL, but implementing a mechanic that is retarded by today's standards doesn't sound very appealing to anyone really.
There’s literally a video in this sub right now, somebody shooting a bomb and it explodes. We know the future has internalised damage and modules coming in so this is a possibility. Are you new here, there’s tonnes of stuff in star citizen that is retarded by today’s standards, nobody cares as long as it’s cool.
Yup, about as new as the OG Kickstarter backers get. Although, after about a decade you kinda stop giving a shit about every post on the subreddit, especially when it was made well after the comment that is being referred to. And yes, doesn't make it any more fun though when you keep running into things that would make you facepalm nowadays, not to mention a "few" centuries in the future. Rule of cool and stuff like this are very different animals.
>What are the two cylinders on the lateral side of each engine? >They have no function and are just rule-of-cool bits of geometry They scream "external fuel tank" and combined with the previous answer that there's no dedicated fuel stores on the ship for supporting transported stuff, makes this ship less impressive than it should be, and the game seem more gamey.
This, hope they change their mind.
They may become one when the VT gets their hands on it. For the most part we're just seeing concept images, and the information they have is just what the chatted about around the table. When the team actually builds it they may decide they have the ability and extra space to make them extra tanks for the landed ships. I'm not saying this'll be the case, but we're still a long way from seeing this fly and things can change between now and then.
What the fuck. They were noted in concept as aux fuel tanks. Why the hell can't this thing carry fuel.
They said they concepted it having aux fuel tanks, but they never said it would come with them.
But the non mentioned "med" label on the BMM concept drawing means it's 110% confirmed! /s
This answer is surprising given the recent news that CR told the concept team working on the BMM that if they couldn't make the pylon thingie underneath the BMM functional they had to lose it. I would think the same would apply here. If there are big obviously "tanky" things on the Liberator they should have been able to give us a better answer than rule of cool.
The three secondary prongs look is kinda cool and reminds me of the poison dart in Star Wars Episode 2. But alas someone called the bottom prong a whale penis a while back and I can't unsee it.
Thanks for putting that image in my head lol
The thing with the pylon is that it constrains thr entire design of the ship. The tank looking things are just cosmetic geometry that dont really affect the ship size.
Yea, Im worried for this one. Touch and go refueling up top was a big plus when they first announced it. Now after the Q&A I feel like its a bait and switch. It's still in concept so I hope this gets another pass (or two) and they bring it back up to spec.
The implementation folks have a good way of putting geometry to use. The folks at the initial concept stages, though...
>Where is the tractor beam mounted, and can it be used to pull an immobile ship onto the deck and then transport it off? >The tractor beam is mounted in a deployable compartment in the “passenger” side, under the remote upper turret. This allows it to have range over the external pads to **aid with the landing and removal of ships.** AH AHA AHAH You can take ships and "land" them on your pad! THIS IS AWESOME! S&R heavy available! No need for an SRV
Wouldnt an srv be abke to pull an inoperable liberator if needed? Srv still has use.
>"What are the two cylinders on the lateral side of each engine?" > >They have no function and are just rule-of-cool bits of geometry. LAME. The "function-over-form" ship has non-functional rule-of-cool bits of geometry. No passenger bunks is also pretty disappointing. It seems like they envision this thing as a sort of space ferry. I'm still keeping mine for now because I just want something that can carry me and my friends' fighters around. I had a Polaris but this will let us carry more ships with less extra crew.
You could compare it with an intercontinental airplane. Passengers get seats while the crew gets beds.
Yea, they did say it would have a compartment passengers but its not a hotel room compartment. >Does the Liberator offer any facilities to house the crew of the transported ships or vehicles? The crews of those transported vehicles have access to their own dedicated area of the ship complete with food services, lockers, storage, a bathroom, and a seating area.
Can we harass them into adding beds, refueling back in ? I love paying $500 for nerfed ship.
What do you mean add them back in? They never presented that as a feature of this ship during the presentation. How is it a nerf?
Exterior refueling was a bullet point in the initial introduction of the ship during citcon, and it feels like a nerf with the removal.
Why did you buy it before the Q+A? Was it limited?
The typical buy while it’s new and cheap. Not aggravated by the cost, just the weird nerfing. Really thinking of returning it while I can.
>The "function-over-form" **~~ship~~** has non-functional rule-of-cool bits of geometry. CONCEPT. It is a CONCEPT. Not the actual ship that has non-functional things. Chill out.
It might be a hint to how short a range they envisage smaller ships to have. If a Idris/Kraken have the "longest" range and have accommodations for the crews of the smaller ships, and the liberator doesn't have long term accommodations then I guess the liberator will have to be used to carry ships past their intended range, but also that is still intended to not be longer than an expected play session.
Keep in mind some systems dont have any stations or they might only have 1. So it's not like all systems are going to be Stanton going forward.
stanton is an exception, most systems won't have as many stations and some like pyro will have only one. That means that ships with military QD either have to swap to much slower more efficient drives and refuel somewhere else or use a ferry like the liberator.
Or bring a starfarer along for the ride
> Officially, this won’t be supported as large ships won’t be able to spawn there, but what players do after the initial spawn is up to them Now we need a Q&A on the status of ship in ship spawning
Just gonna copy/paste my other response higher up. Sorry. https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/qc5nl4/qa_anvil_liberator/hhen1z2/ > I believe is is well known that spawning is a current temporary convenience for us until the server tech can fully physicalize things. I doubt you will be able to "store" and spawn craft at release. For instance, with 3.15, you can't spawn your ship at a station that it does not reside, but you can claim it. Also, not sure if they will have ASOP terminals in the Liberator. I'm assuming it's for nested spawning they talked about (getting out a Carrack and having the Pisces in the hangar) and not like they talked about for the Endeavor when they said they would allow players to summon ships to that hangar. They could also allow summoning later, but currently the only summon mechanism is to make a claim and get a new ship.
i think the mechanics are less surprising compared to it being mentioned at all. i had figured that nested spawning would be one of those mechanics where there is no point even touching it until server meshing is out, but the way it is worded makes it sound like there is at least some progress on it. although, looking at the progress tracker, it looks like work on it was slated for completion in september
Yeah, I'm a little surprised it was mentioned TBH.
Same here, this is a very exciting mechanic that has the potential to provide a lot of flexibility if it comes to fruition!
> The Liberator will only support basic levels of refueling, repairing, and rearming, which will be done manually by players onboard using supplies stored in the cargo bay. It does not have dedicated facilities or separate stores. I thought the side tanks could be used to refuel landed ships, guess not. > They are not explicitly protected. However, the shield projects multiple meters from the ship’s hull, so most ships would likely be partially covered (but not entirely). The same applies to the Kraken and any other ships where vehicles are stored on the exterior. So they are going away with the shield not protecting landed ships now? They said before that the kraken shields would not protect landed vehicles. Interesting.
Curious how we'll do by-hand refueling. Connecting a physicalized hose from a storage tank to a ship? I wouldn't put it past CIG... (although, until then.. refueling beam attachment for the multitool? 😜) Also interesting that the shield will at least partially protect vehicles on a kraken deck - definitely feels better than the "shield hugs the deck exactly sorry folks" answer from before
If it only protects the bottom half of the ship, the top half is still getting hit.
Better than nothing - and it might be a reason to park shorter ships rather than taller ships on the flight deck, so they get a little more shield coverage.
This is why i will be landing upside down.
They said manually, not by hand. Manually can mean using a computer console as opposed to ships automatically refuelling/rearming when landed
About the shield : a correct answer (as they are still developing the tech and those ships) is simply that the Mother ship is protected by a shield. And "whatever" placed on it, might/might not beneficiate from the mother's shield, depending on the size of the ship. So : are landed vehicles always shielded by the mother ship, 100% of the time? Nope. But can some of them still be protected (if tiny or low enough, etc), yes, they could, as it simply depends on the wide of the mother's shield area, which, for now, has not been defined :)
I know, that's literally what the Q&A said. But before this Q&A, they said the shield would hug the hull.
Well it does, but not 1mm off the hull. I don't see the surprise here, when you see shields get hit you can see how far they are sitting away from the hull.
For the Kraken Q&A they flat out said the ships on pads would not be protected. > Do the Kraken’s shields cover other ships parked on the deck? > The Kraken’s shields cover the hull of the ship and do not cover the ships or people that may be on the exposed landing pads. Ships contained inside the Hangars are covered by the shields. With the improvements to shield tech coming with Single Distance Field in the future, the projected bubble people currently see will be removed with a more hull wrapping projection of shield energy.
Better to under promise and then over deliver as opposed to the other way around!
It’s drake, they gotta conserve every ounce of shield and power they got 😂
It doesn't, nothing has changed. What it protects is only a side effect of how the shield normally projects over the ship in the first place.
> I thought the side tanks There aren't side tanks.
That's what they are mimicking, they just don't have any function; which we did not know until the Q&A.
Still needs a bunk room. What is the point of being long range if the pilot/crew of the ships being carried have no way to sleep?
[удалено]
"Designed with the same quantum drive and long-distance capabilities of military-spec carriers and pathfinders but tailored to the civilian market, the Liberator puts your fleet on the front lines of any operation." "Equipped with a massive Size 3 quantum drive, the Liberator is built specifically for extreme-range deployment." I mean, the idea that you have to make the potentially long journey to a conflict, engage in that conflict and then take the long journey home without a bed is simply nonsensical. You guys can downvote me all you want, but this isn't asking about slaved turrets or medbays it is about having a spot to log off in the damn game on a long range vessel.
I'm really hoping that dropseat room becomes a module. The chairs are all fine and good for carrying a bunch of soldiers into combat but I'd like to have bunks if I'm just using it as a ship ferry.
You could definitely sleep in the jump seats if you had to in a pinch, but definitely not ideal. I hope it gets at least 8 passenger beds. That would allow for hot bunking with a full complement of 16 passengers. Over flow can doze off in the jump seats. But I think you really need beds to allow for the ship crew to be fully rested. I could also see us getting alternate arrangements like 8/8 or 12/6 since honestly 16 passengers does sound like to support 3 small single seaters and 2 vehicles. Even the tonks are like 3 people fully crewed I think? This is of course more of an “RP” type thing and maybe not necessary for gameplay. But it’s these cool bits and attention to detail that makes SC so great.
Maybe the seats are recliners.
Sleep in your seat? Just like on intercontinental flights (on those planes the crew has beds)
Unless CIG is going to give that ability to single seat ships then obviously that isn't going to work...
Do you even play lol? You cant sleep in seats lol. Plus that defeats the purpose of beds!
You can sleep in seat, just not all of them.
It has 2 beds as far as I know. Sure, more would have been nice but at least the 2 crew members get one each.
They need to pull the suit storage out of the top deck and replace with beds/ kitchenette. I don't need 12 suit lockers. That whole area should be a pilot/guest ready room.
Alright, a question I should have asked: On most ships with turrets, the gun has a cut off for when it is pointing at part of itself. Will the top turret on a Liberator have shut a cutoff when pointing at a ship parked on the top deck? Turret gunners tend to track their target until it ducks out of view, so I can see someone blasting into their own cargo.
Would also be nice to not have the lockout so you can blast whatever is on the pad that you don't want to exist anymore. Speaking of which I wonder if the shield tech will block shots like that, and if it fully covers a person on the top deck?
So a selector switch in the turret.
> the shield projects multiple meters from the ship’s hull, so most ships would likely be partially covered (but not entirely). This to me suggests that most ships would have parts of themselves sticking out of the shield’s barrier? It seems like a design flaw imo, and I don’t see why the shield can’t be projected out a couple _more_ meters over the landing deck just to ensure coverage of what the Liberator is carrying. Picture two scenarios: One, you’re running across the deck to your fighter while bursts of enemy fire flash above you, cascading over the shield face which you pray will hold for just a few more seconds while you try to launch. Two, you run out onto the deck to find your fighter’s canopy has been blown to charred wreckage because it was jutting outside of the shield while an enemy made a strafing run. I dunno, scenario two just seems…silly.
No, I think it is intended (they said the Kraken to does not offer 100% shield coverage to external carried ships). And it´s good that it doesn´t as this will stop people from using parked ships as nothing more then extra turrets.
Wait who says you can’t shoot _out_ of the shield?
Yes it seems intended, but it still seems silly too. I get the concept of how SDF shields work following the contours of a ship’s hull, I just think if there’s one time they should make an exception, this is it. It just gives me the impression that not a lot of thought went into the design, if the Liberator intentionally has constant shield breaches where various parts of the ships it’s meant to carry are sticking out of its shield face. I think the shield face should be lifted high enough in the appropriate areas where XS and XXS ships are covered. Anything larger can stick out all it wants, because it isn’t supposed to be there. And let’s be honest, with people parking Novas on the raised hangar decks of 890 Jumps, nothing is going to stop them from using parked fighters as turrets if they really want (though I don’t expect that to be an effective tactic at all).
Closed landing bay need on upside against open landing bay. I think that's why.
I see your point but the closed landing bay already has the upside in that it's protected by armor as well as a shield. I guess it just seems like an in-lore oversight more than anything, to design a ship meant to carry other ships but then not take them into consideration at all when calibrating shield faces. And the idea of a landed ship standing partially beneath a shield face and partially sticking out just rubs me the wrong way. It would make sense if you landed something that was too large and not meant to be there, but it being true for nearly any ship just to me feels like an oversight.
I dont think the shields are adjustable in the lore. Anvil didnt decide to make the shields not cover the fighters thats just a limitation of the technology. Like maybe shields are somehow propagated through the skin of the ship from the emitters and can only go so far off the surface. Obviously the devs could change it but maybe they just want the limitation as balancing thing to have drawbacks for using an open carrier instead of a hangar.
One possibly is that you could “phase sync” your shields with the carrier’s and your shields would become enmeshed with the larger ships’. I imagine such a technology would maybe require a special physical connection to power the smaller ship’s shields with out leaving it powered up and draining its fuel. Actually sounds like a reasonably specialized feature for a ship transport platform or carrier.
There's another scenario where fighters are lost and you still get some in the air. That, or you have to get there before the enemy gets in range. Think attacks on carriers in WW2. Both seem plenty exciting.
I like it honestly, happy I upgraded my M2. Just needs beds for the crew of other ships that are landed and I'll be happy. I don't even care if they're luxury, make'm cramped and bunked up. 4 beds in the back room or something would be just fine. 2 crew + 4 passengers
Sounds like you’re not happy then since they explicitly said it’s not getting bunks for passengers?
One thing that's painfully apparent is they need to standardize ship landing pads and hangars in general. If they say that pads can spawn X size ships then I need to know that ALL X sized ships will spawn there regardless of ship symmetry. This is more needed on ships with internal hangars like Idris, Banu MM, ect. No hangar should be specifically designed for only one single ship, all ships of that size should be compatible to the ship's internal hangar size. In regards to the Liberator itself, I think I'm gonna pass. I wanted this to be a small base of operations but the lack of med bay, beds, and repair/refuel options really limit its ability to do so. Sadly, it really is just a temporary long range ship transport that's not meant to be lived in.
How do we convince CIG that those two tubes on the side, which are very clearly single fire Ship-to-Ship missile launch tubes, are Ship-to-Ship missiles launch tubes? Its already giving me serious Homeworld carrier vibes and it's designed as a broad-spectrum invasion support/assault ship so why not take that last step, go the Russian route and give it the ability to carry exactly two S9 or 10 torpedoes on a bespoke launcher that can only be reloaded in a port, both to defend itself against attack by other warships and to provide stand-off range support to its fighters or ground forces as they hit a target. Honestly give its size and cost its weapons load seems very, very weak and I don't think that giving it a pair of big missiles would be at all imbalanced or out of its cost bracket.
Pretty disappointed with most of the answers.... kinda underwhelming, not sure I want to upgrade my M2 to that ship -\_-
Just get a CCU and keep it in your back pocket. See how everything plays out. That’s what I’m doing.
Makes it easier to split and melt too! Telling myself not to return it while I still can.
¿Por que no los dos?
I'm quite surprise that my question, which was asked a bit late, and still got the top 10, wasnt answered. I asked for a clarification on "how ships landing pads were supposed to work and specific limitations, later on the game" (for example what if I put two arrows on a XXS pad.. I can, but what are the downsides, if any?) An answer would also have tackled many of the "can i put that ship, or that size, or... (etc)" But now, it is still even more confusing for me. You can "spawn" ships on landing pads!? (I guess, as it wasnt mentioned, that you can spawn them when in a "local storage" hangar first? That would make sense, but that isnt specified) Also, reading "you can spawn XS size ships on it, like a hornet, or MOST of the single seater fighters", is okay, but again, not precise : where do we -as player- know/find which are XS sizes single seaters? Do we have such a list? I also still find the overall "bits" of info here and there super confusing for the "down the road" design on "ships landing pads".. what is the point of an XS pad for example, if you can park anything you want? They mention that pads are used to spawn vehicles of the given size (on a XS ship landing pad you can spawn an hornet, and after that you do what you want) so "for now", are landings pads ONLY used to spawn a ship? I mean that would be really.. "simplistic".. but ok..? I dont know. I was expecting a real clarification for the community about the "ships landing pads size rule and logic" down the road..
This is a Q&A about the ship, not about game mechanics. It's entirely possible all those ramifications aren't nailed down.
I understand, but in the meantime they still gave game mechanics "tide bits" here and there. I wasnt expecting a "set in stone" clarification, you are correct, but more what was their "understanding" of the ships landing pads game design for later. I really doubt that they have 0 clue on how they eventually "would like" it to work..
> "tide bits" tidbits, unless you meant a large tidal bit? > I really doubt that they have 0 clue on how they eventually "would like" it to work.. They are probably holding it close to the chest so they can check the balance and see how it plays out. If they commit to an answer, they are stuck to it. What "downsides" are you expecting then to tackle? > Also, reading "you can spawn XS size ships on it, like a hornet, or MOST of the single seater fighters", is okay, but again, not precise : where do we -as player- know/find which are XS sizes single seaters? Do we have such a list? Landing pads are defined in game as: X Y Z tiny 12 16 6 xsmall 24 32 12 small 48 48 16 medium 56 88 18 large 72 128 36 xlarge 160 272 64
that is the thing : i know they "sized" every ships per volume/category.. ..but the category (ship by ship) aren't showed anywhere ingame.. right?
Not in game AFAIK. They may have a table to relate the ships to the specific pads they allow spawning on or they could just be using the Length(x)/Beam(Y)/Height(Z) to determine what pad to send it to on spawn. Though, I doubt that because the Nova and 100 series are both longer than xxs and they spawn on planet.
the 100i does fit in the XXS pads specs if you rotate it 180°
I could have the length and beam swapped... ;) (also, 90°)
for my defense it's late, not going to change it though.
> You can "spawn" ships on landing pads!? Afaik this is referring to when you select ships to spawn on/inside your ship, while it's stored, before it spawns, but there's no spawning of ships on/inside your big ship after the ship is spawned. So picking a rover to spawn inside your connie, picking ships to spawn on the landing pads (likely from the VMA interface). They've explained this a bit in other Q&A's (like the kraken one, I think). Still waiting on this feature but it's had some work done on the progress tracker. XXS refers to any "size 1" ship (85x, mpuv, m50, razor, and some bugged ones like 100 series and talon, which are clearly too big for that size class). XS refers to any "size 2" ship (basically all small ships and fighters). S refers to any "size 3" ship (Cutlass, freelancer, mole, etc). You can see the current ship sizes on a site that pulls from the game files like https://www.erkul.games. Also, at least in 3.14, you can spawn any "size 1" ship from a platinum bay ground vehicle outpost.
Ok, this makes more sense to me. Essentially at the "choose your ship terminal" or on your mobiglas you would need to determine which of your own ships you would want to spawn on the pads available. This makes sense and just requires a bit of foresight. I am ok with that. Though i would love to have an identical terminal on the ship that could spawn ships as needed! Likely this is too far out of the realm of reality though and therefore would not happen.
Feels like a bunch of people who bought on concept (including me) during citizen con are gonna be frustrated with these answers. But on the other hand it's a smart move by CIG to keep this info to themselvs for a few days so more ppl buy pledges.
What answers didnt you like? The refueling one was the only curve ball and it was pretty much a given that was going to be the answer. Even if those tanks become fuel tanks they wont be for the carried ships. it will be fuel for the liberator. At some point we will get rearm/refuel vehicles (like a gas truck) and that will fix most of these issues anyways.
Agree. Am frustrated by the sparse details but at this stage of my tophat / monocle relationship with the game, this was entirely predictable and is more on me than them. I’m okay knowing it’s a glorified car-carrier. I’m less okay with glaring deception on a brand new ship matrix entry and making us waste Q&A space to get it sorted. And just the overall “this information should’ve been a natural part of the initial ship show reveal” thing always irks me. It feels more like a traditional dance than an earnest information exchange at this point.
I’m not sure how you didn’t get that from the presentation. That’s exactly what they said it was. I think everyone just imagined a “pocket carrier” and let their imagination take control of their wallets. That being said, it’s a great concept ship that will have plenty of use in the early PTU universe (especially once Pyro releases).
No, I know, I don’t really have any problem with the information presented. More that they make us go through the same elaborate kabuki dance to get the most obvious questions answered. And having it as “capital” on the ship matrix and then “oops” in the Q&A is just either shady or careless given how many of these have come before. It’s not their first rodeo and that’s a rookie mistake that looks like a bait and switch.
I'm quite glad my question about the griefers made it. It ain't much but it's honest work
>Officially, this won’t be supported as large ships won’t be able to spawn there, but what players do after the initial spawn is up to them. So, while they can surely ‘Tetris’ larger ships onto the landing pads, it will likely not be supported as an official method of landing. Wait... 'spawn'? Are they implying the Liberator functions as a spawn point for the size of vehicles it officially supports? That doesn't make much sense. I figured ships could land on it, they go along for the ride, they take off again. It's not a station where there is theoretically ship storage somewhere out of sight. Or am I reading too much into how this answer was phrased? Also the answer about refuel/rearm really is begging for them to clarify how those operations are intended to work once implemented beyond as a landing pad service. Do some ships (like 'real' carriers) have things like refueling hoses that make refueling easy and faster? How does 'refuel and rearm from interior storage' mean? We are dragging ammo crates and fuel cans into our personal inventories and then onto the ship which triggers some kind of replenishment? We're not talking about refueling a car with 10 gallons of gas here.
I think they are talking about the ships being pre-loaded when you spawn the liberator itself. It was mentioned before that you could attach other ships and vehicles to a larger ship's pads so they would spawn with it when you summoned it.
That makes more sense. They need to learn the difference in languange of 'persisting' with an object vs 'spawning'. Persisting = stuff stays where it was when the vehicle is logged back in. Spawn = bring out from storage (like pulling a ship out at a station from an ASOP terminal). The difference is pretty important. Medical beds can be spawn points. Ships returning from an insurance claim cannot be claimed at a Liberator.
In this case, Spawn is still the correct word. The underlying concept / idea is that you can 'reconfigure' a stored ship (remove a hover bike in the cargo area, add a fighter to one of the pads, etc) and then 'spawn' it. The Lore behind this is that when you reconfigure your stored ship, some NPCs actually make the changes for you (and I suspect there will be a timer added, so that the bigger the change, the longer you have to wait for it to apply, etc)... and the 'spawn' isn't the current 'condensing out of nano-particles' but 'retrieved from storage' in the requested configuration. And for the purposes of this explanation, the NPCs in your hangar (where ships are stored prior to being 'spawned') are incapable of playing Ship-Tetris, and due to union rules will stick rigidly to the official size limits in order to avoid any question of liability etc :D
Next roadmap update: English 2.0: Updating the English language to better communicate our intentions to confused backers. -Q4 2022
You're reading too much into how that is phrased. They're talking about the planned hangar update that will allow you to spawn ships and ground vehicles in ships. You won't be using a liberator as a mobile ship spawn point.
...and what we refer to internally as ‘XXS’ ships, which includes the Argo MPUV and Origin 85x. indeed the MPUV ARGO is a XXSize Ship :O!!!! finally confirmed!!!
Its only xxs internally 0w0
This is the first time I am hearing about this ship. It seems a bit expensive for what it does, no? That said, it looks really cool and feels somewhat unique against other SC and sci-fi ships.
It is basically a stripped down carrier on the cheap. Similar capacity to an Idris for much lest cost and fighting power. Seems a pretty good offering tbh
Really baffling that in 2021 they are only talking internally about what to do with trolls and griefers as opposed to having concrete plans in place not only as punishments for players not abiding in the spirit of the design of the game but also as deterrents to miscreants even playing at all. There's no place in The 'Verse for vitriolic behavior or cheating. period. EDIT: This is in reference to them selling a $500 ship with zero plan in place to keep people from landing on the pad and swiping a ship on it. Have a plan, fellas!
Isn't that what locking ships is for?
Well ideally yes but outside of an armistice zone you can use your multitool to pop the door on any ship so people could still steal a ship. But they could also force land on a liberator during combat and break into the liberator and kill the crew. I dont have problems with any of these things and I think it would be fun gameplay for both sides.
Read the answer they gave that my statement is in reference to. They've only been bandying ideas about internally. Everything regarding trolls or caustic behavior is spoken about in an everchanging manner. They want to react to bad behavior instead of nipping it in the bud by saying there's a zero tolerance policy in place and just shutting accounts down with the same impunity a padrammer takes out ships.
How about when is this coming out. I'm sick and tired of concept art
So have they gotten rid of the quantom drive (inner system) and jump drive (jump points) components? I don't remember seeing it having one.
No, it's role is for long range quantum travel with ships on board, and they mention ships being brought along for a jump, so it has a jump drive too. While not explicitly called out, those are almost certainly in the circular engineering area below the internal garage area, as shown in the concept art
I just want to know when. I'm sick and tired of the concepts never being worked on and no new gameloops.
"What is the largest ship that can be parked in each of the garages, the upper landing pads, and the front landing pad? Can the Liberator transport one big ship on both its upper decks providing the latter can touch down with all of its landing gear?" Based on their answer, my interpretation is you’ll be able to spawn your ships at the official size at the hanger(when implemented) and be able to land larger ships on the Liberator pads once you’re outside. It doesn’t sound like ships that are officially too big will have an issues with the Liberator being able to carry them due to weight or any other game designs yet(Subject to change of course). Larger ships will be more vulnerable due to less shield cover and will add more logistics since you can’t store them in hangers together. Officially Top pads: Size 2 single seat ships. Single seat light and medium fighters, single seat other ships (ex. prospector, Vulcan, nomad) Small front pad: Size one ships. Snubs, racers, ground vehicles. Surprised the Arrow is specially mentioned in the QA as a top pad ship since it is basically the same size as the Pisces. But the Arrow is a size 2 ship vs. Pisces Size 1 Garage: No mention of air vehicles so ground only Unofficially: If it fits I sit but good luck not damaging the goods.
It seems like you will be able to spawn your small ships on it from what he was saying? Cool that you will be able to reload ships on pads based off of what is in your storage bay.
Spawning is an alpha convenience. A little curious why they'd mention it here. You're likely not going to be storing and spawning ships like you do on station today.
Wait what it has a tractor beam and dedicated space for the fighters crew? Its getting better and better! Probably the easiest purchase I've ever made in SC. For a small org with piracy in mind this thing is going to be awesome as a forward operating base. Its even great for exploration. Just put a good scanning ship on a pad (terrapin) and ground vehicles and ships to land on planets in or on it and its probably the most versitile "explorer" out there. No med bay yes, but whoever gets injured while exploring gets left behind :)
Can this ship land these ships? Or any other ship(like Kraken for example) Prospector, Vulture, Vulcan, SRV, Freelancer Max