I've already given my feedback on the appropriate feedback channel. I'm just here to share my frustration and disappointment with this one honestly. I'll start on a bit of positive note, as I like to do with these posts. As I don't want to come off as a "You suck CIG" post. Which is never my intent. On a whole, I do appreciate so much of the hard work put into this game, but when something doesn't work, there are only so many ways to say it. This is one such case. So positive thoughts first: Usually, when CIG implements a new profession in the game, I'm rarely, if ever... "disappointed" on a game design, and ambition stand-point. Mining is what was promised in the early days from a design standpoint. Refueling (even if there are no reasons to do it right now) does exactly what I expect refueling to do. I'll even defend the beams, like "tractor beams," etc. Beam citizen, right? But you know what? I get it. I want fewer beams, for sure. But I understand tractor beams. It works well enough, and it's a feature that we were told would be in the game since almost its inception. So I can hardly complain about that. Ship towing? Even if we lack proper missions for it? Does exactly what is expected. Bombing? Can benefit of a bit more complexity sure but it does what you would expect. Hull scraping was (emphasis on "was", because it's pointless now) surprisingly enjoyable when it came out. It felt like a dev at CIG played "power wash simulator" and thought, "Hey, that could be a cool salvage mechanic." And you know what? Yeah, it is. It actually is. This is a very good example on how making something simple, but still different, fun, and with its own identity. Not everything needs to be super complex, simple can be good. I must stress this. "Complex" doesn't mean it's necessarily "better". As long as I can see intent, an idea. A concept that gives something "new" to the player experience. All in all, I never really had to complain about a new profession from a "design" or "mechanic" standpoint. Most of them offered something "new". Different. Sometimes they are complex, sometime they are simple. But overall, I feel that they give something "NEW". Alright, with that out of the way, I'm taking the gloves off now. What the hell happened during the development of structural salvage? (Aka munching, and now I get why the name was changed.) Mind you, I'm not even complaining about the "reclaimer's claw" being changed. Frankly, I always expected that they would just replace it with a laser because making the original design work would be a nightmare. I get it, I fault no one for going for something that is easier to implement. What we have now is a nice compromise. I'll take it. No problems there. I'm also not talking about the lack of visual feedback when a wreck get's "structurally salvaged." Yeah, it stinks that the ship goes "poof" right now, but that's something the VFX teams can kind of fix with some visual and audio designs to "mask" off the immersion-breaking effect we have right now. That can be fixed. I'm not worried. No, what concerns me here? Is the "game design" of structural salvage. Or, lack thereof! Remember, munch- oh, sorry! "Structural salvage" was supposed to: A) Be more complex and difficult than the super-chill and easy "Hull Scrapping" loop. (which is fine) B) Be "complementary" to hull scrapping. Not just be better and replace "hull scrapping" all together. The addition of "hull Scrapping," was supposed to add depth to the entire profession of salvaging a ship. Something new. An ADDITION. Not a replacement. C) Be about cutting a ship to pieces and bringing these pieces INSIDE the ship so that "munching" can begin. Neither point A) nor point B) or C) are true at this point in time. And I don't feel that much effort (if any) was made to achieve either of these goals. This is the most "box-check" feature I have ever seen put in the game. Star Citizen has the reputation of "not cutting corners" and being overly ambitious. Well, you certainly can't see any of that in the structural salvage mechanic. I understand that concessions have to be made sometimes. Like with the original Reclaimer claw. I knew this would be scrapped (Pun intended) in favor of something more easily implementable. Again, that's fine! No problem. But the actual loop, game design of structural salvage and how it fits in the entire "Salvage" gameplay eco-system? Oh boy... What the hell is happened here? In essence, this is structural salvage: - Deploy arm/mode - Align to object - Get to appropriate distance - Push button to start process - Wait for bar to fill. - Collect the credits (lots of it). That's it. That's... structural salvage for you. Sounds awfully similar to mining asteroids doesn't it? (With less complexity at the moment). Well. In its core elements. That's what it is. You're mining a ship. Plain and simple. I'm sorry, but... This is just... not good. It's really, REALLY disappointing. It honestly feels like (and this is just me speculating here), that CIG just threw their hands in the air on this one and said "Screw it! Just do... Something! So we can check that box and say that its done!" I honestly see no other explanation for it. The original concept of cut a wreck into smaller pieces, bringing those small pieces in, having these pieces get "munched" inside your ship to turn into scrap. That, just like the wrecks going "POOF" with structural salvage, is just GONE! No where to be seen. Replaced by the most unoriginal, box-checking gameplay loop I have seen to date in this game. And to make matters worse, structural salvage is unquestionably... "BETTER" than hull scrapping. So now... Hull scrapping is POINTLESS. Has no reason to exist what so ever. Now, I'm sure THAT problem can be fixed my making the material of Hull scrapping have a specific usage in the verse or something? But still. There simply is NO natural balance or synergy in the three "salvage" gameplays ecosystem. One simply is worth doing, the others are NOT. That's it. Plain and simple. All and all. This one is a big "MISS" for me personally. Oh I have NO doubt that it will be "popular" and everyone is going to do it just because of how CRAZY profitable it is. I hope CIG won't look at the popularity of the activity (because if it's profitability) as a "win". Because it's not. That doesn't make structural salvage a good gameplay loop. That doesn't mean it's fun! And it certainly doesn't mean that the gameplay has ANY identity. If the gameplay loop is : point at object, get closer, click button, watch object go POOF. I would honestly just rather mine actual rocks, honestly. I mean. What's the difference, really? So yeah. Sorry if this isn't a positive post. But, I have very little positive things to say about "structural salvage" other than, it's INSANELY profitable at the moment. (And It's still nice to see the claw animated, even if its different.) Oh! And the addition of a "buffer" and larger boxes for salvage are a VERY nice change. Probably the BEST new feature regarding to salvage. Structural salvage itself though... yikes. Big yikes! Like I said, this feels like it was done just so a "feature check-list" box could be checked. So yeah. Structural salvage. It "exists". I guess!