It starts with THIS roadmap card: https://robertsspaceindustries.com/roadmap/board/1-Star-Citizen/card/719-High-Speed-Combat And I quote: Ship systems will suffer the strains of traveling at high speeds, with maximum velocity resulting in the restriction of some player options in the cockpit, creating a vulnerability that will push players into engagement at lower speeds. It seems to imply that speed would impact component performance in the absence of collision and other causes of acceleration (e.g. atmospheric turbulence). Do the developers need to be reminded that everyone who wants to play a space game is painfully aware of the fact that There is no aether in space. Aether or luminiferous aether was refuted indirectly in 1750 by B. Franklin's demonstration of "Force at a Distance" which demolished the parsimony argument that asserted aether to be the less cumbersome explanation given the incredibility (at the time) of force at a distance; a physical mechanic necessary to explain the propagation of light in the absence of any physical medium. Aether was later refuted directly and definitively via an experiment published by Michelson and Morley in 1887. Unsurprisingly, at non-relativistic speeds; there is no measurable space drag, no space turbulence and nothing to change how things work whether sitting "stationary" or hurtling along an orbit at the speed of the International Space Station. Speed is relative. The average speed of the International Space Station yields different numbers depending on what point of reference we are talking about. Relative to the sun, it's moving at an average of 29780 m/s but, relative to the earth, it's moving at only 7700 m/s. Relative to the technician working at an external access point in EVA, the International Space Station is stationary. None of these speeds prevent components from functioning or make it any more dangerous or difficult for activities such as docking and EVA because, ultimately, the applicable relative speed is very low - thus requiring minimal thrust and acceleration for minimising relative speed. High acceleration is already the disadvantage of attempting to interact at high relative speeds. For it to work as a "vulnerability", there needs to be consequences for making strategically bad decisions: Blackout and Redout at high-Gs needs to have more impact [either that or get rid of it altogether and let IFCS manipulate artificial gravity to counteract the impact of G-force on pilots] G-Force fatigue (i.e. increasingly greater sensitivity to blackout and redout, the more the avatar is subjected to G-Forces within the same session) needs to be much higher There needs to be significantly less fuel efficiency and correspondingly higher fuel consumption at higher acceleration. Greater vibration means greater fatigue and higher wear and tear for everything (not just power and engines) so wear and tear should be higher across the board at higher accelerations More sensitivity to wear and tear (e.g. above 54% of available acceleration for civilian components, above 56% of available acceleration for racing components, above 58% of available acceleration for military components, and above 60% of available acceleration for industrial components) More wear and tear at higher acceleration compared with lower acceleration. Wear and tear for combat should be orders of magnitude higher than for industrial or transportation purposes - and combat mission payouts should reflect the elevated cost of combat (so that the big bucks can be earned by implementing strategies which minimise fuel use as well as wear and tear during combat) Malfunctions due to wear and tear should not start as potentially catastrophic "misfires" and "resets" (which make no sense at all) but, instead, should produce issues such a thruster gimbal-lock and subsequent thruster disabling with the flow-on impact to ship maneuverability. This way, wear and tear can build up from relatively minor imbalances in maneuverability to an inability to accelerate in a key direction once sufficient thrusters are shut down due to gimbal lock and, ultimately, the loss of maneuvering capability preceding the imperative to either stop and effect repairs in EVA or abandon ship. The thing is that these little problems occur at higher accelerations, not higher speeds (unless in atmosphere) and that's why the wording of the roadmap card causes me enough concern to write this up. ____ NOTE: I'm not talking about taking these things to such an extreme that other activities become impractical or too difficult to enjoy. The goal isn't to curtail player options. After all, that isn't any fun either. The goal is to give these things enough impact to be worth considering when making decisions and, thus, increase the number of consequential choices available to the player; therby giving the game more depth, breadth and ultimately more scope for enjoyable gameplay.