Howdy folks,
I've asked in General Chat that 'controller balance' threadjackings stop. Do not turn unrelated discussions into arguments about this; doing so will be treated like any ordinary forum offense. I will stress: everyone is fully aware of the campaign for this issue to 'be heard,' and I will say again that it has been.
It only seems fair at the same time I share our positions on this issue here in this thread. I am sorry if these aren't the answers you want to hear. Similarly, I'm sorry of this is not absolute enough to you; there's a lot of work left to do and we can't know what we're going to discover. I've put together a short FAQ that you can point folks to, if so desired.
Is the control scheme in Arena Commander today final?
No, it is not. We intend to continue balancing the control scheme until the game is finished. Arena Commander is an 'alpha' test bed for our ideas and not the finished product. The control scheme available today is one of those ideas, and it was designed with making the systems available in Arena Commander today fun. There are many, many systems yet to come online, which if nothing else will necessitate significant control changes before the game is finished. (But of course, your concerns and game balance are equally important reasons for doing this.)
You keep saying controller balance, when what we really care about is the gimbals!
We are aware of this. Controller balance is a good shorthand to refer to this discussion. Using the term is in no way a claim that we don't understand you are talking about the degree of control mouse players have over their gimbaled weapons.
Are the gimbals going to stay in the finished version of Star Citizen?
Likely, yes. At present, our research and development is focused on finding a way to balance the fine controls allowed to the mouse with the more fun ones associated with a joystick or HOTAS. We don't have the answer to this problem yet, but are willing to try many different things to get there (the most recent of which was reducing the size of gimbaled weapons so that players must make a choice and joystick players with fixed mounts get a damage/effectiveness boost. That's one example we've tested, and there are other test cases in the pipeline.) Please note that I add the qualifier likely not to give anyone here false hope, but because it is also possible that we will come up with a completely different plan that we are happy with. There are infinite possibilities.
Why don't you know now?
There are two types of development processes: ones that involve solving a problem and ones that involve working towards a task. This is the former: we know we want to improve controller balance but we don't know what the solution to the problem is yet... and so we test many ideas until we find something we're happy with. Unlike, say, texturing the outside of a ship, there's no way to put a number on the process and say 'oh yes, inventing this solution will take X number of days.' It's something we could figure out tomorrow, it's something we could still be working on in six months. (And no, neither of those are bounds!)
What are your goals for controller balance?
Make Star Citizen fair and fun. No control choice should offer a massive advantage. (This is different from 'every control scheme should be identical' - it's about finding a balance.)
And further down:
To the best of my knowledge, there is no specific number to chase... which, in all honesty, is one of the things that makes the process so difficult on our side. (One thing you learn early on with ship stats is that no matter how much sense a number looks on paper, it will never match the reality once you've actually built your rule set.)
Edited to add: but in re-reading, the phrase certainly sounds like I'm trying to weasel out of a specific. You can ignore the word massive. No advantage is the goal, and we will work to get as close to that as we possibly can.
.
