Dear devs, I would like a response from you regarding this. What do you want for large and Capital ships? A serious answer, because in videos you present them in a grandiose way, make parallels with Squadron 42, explain that they cannot be damaged by small fighters, and we wait, wait, wait, but this never actually happens. Now, if we take the various changes one by one, someone might say, we are in a development phase, but if we put them all together, we see a trend that is far from encouraging. Let’s start with the turrets. Whenever they have proven effective against fighters, they have been slowed down, to the point that today, deploying a Hammerhead in the game is simply ridiculous, because we have an anti-fighter gunship that can literally shoot in all directions without blind spots, but it cannot hit fighters because its turrets cannot track them, and you need other fighters to escort an anti-fighter gunship against fighters. I don’t know if you realize how ridiculous this is. Then comes the armor. Initially, there was a lot of HP, in the early PTU phases it was really high, it gave a sense of the imposing size of large ships, then you reduced it so much that it became ridiculous. And then comes the armor threshold. The armor threshold comes with higher values that still allow small weapons to damage capitals. In the final version, we have a ridiculous threshold that really allows size 1 cannons and size 2 and 3 repeaters to damage capitals. Of course, not conventional weapons used in PvP against other fighters, i.e., CFs, but still, they are tiny cannons, even if they are M-series or Attrition. Armor reduced to a tenth of the original or less—a Polaris goes from 550,000 to 60,000, an Idris from over 2 million to 100k. And again, yes, it allows us to survive a little longer, but it is not what you promised. Then you increase the shields, but you also increase the damage that laser weapons do to the shields—what that was supposed to accomplish, I still don’t understand. Then comes the radar. We find large ships with ranges of 5 km or more, like a Perseus, with radar blocked at 2 km. The Polaris, which should have a particular long-range radar, the largest before the Bengal, 4 km, then no more aiming support, so that fighters can gatekeep, enter and exit without turrets reacting because they are targeted too late and do not move fast enough. So, the question is, what do you want these ships to be? This is a serious question, because we buy them, we pay thousands of euros, so you cannot fool people. Otherwise, we are at the edge of fraud, not just bad game design, okay? So you must be honest: do you want these ships to be impactful, not zergable by small fighters, or should we settle for being fighter targets and dying? The fate of someone piloting such a ship is not to be impactful on the battlefield, but to entertain fighter players? Tell us clearly, because I assure you, no player enjoys being an NPC. So do not expect this system to be liked. It will undoubtedly please fighter pilots, but those who like to play on these ships will wave goodbye, eh? Or, and this is another possibility that cannot be ignored, the armor and thresholds are so low because you have temporarily extended what will be the weak points of the ship across the entire hull. For example, turrets currently have no armor, which is stupid, because no army, except maybe the Star Wars Empire—but the evil empire, I wouldn’t take that as an example—puts its soldiers inside a cardboard box. Probably turrets will have armor with a lower threshold and lower hit points, as will doors. So, what you are doing is extending the weak points to the entire ship to calibrate them, because the strong points, where small weapons simply cannot enter, don’t require much analysis, and now you have turned all ships into a big weak spot. To understand this, you have minimized radar to figure out how short-range combat should work. And the turrets are bad because you do not yet have a specific aiming system; the one for fighters and for turrets is the same, and you do not yet have a new flight model ready, so you are not balancing them. This could be the case. But tell us. At least we know that these numbers are like this not because you thought they were functional, but because we have to test. And if you tell us, I can guarantee that a large part of us will not care and will be fine with it, because they will be testing it unknowingly while playing, but some of us will actively do tests to generate data for gameplay that interests us. So don’t do anything wrong by telling us, “Look, we are testing this for this reason here.” We know, and we are fine. We will even open fewer posts pointing out problems, which become pointless because we already know you know, but are testing something. Or, tell us clearly: do you just want us to be fighter targets, because your vision is that of heroic fighter pilots destroying the Death Star, and those on capitals should just be their target? You must be like NPCs. A nice challenge, but a challenge that does not win. Tell us clearly. Because, from what I see from your development trend, you are imagining us as a nice challenge that must not win. If that’s the case, I’ll close shop, Star Citizen is not the game for me. And for everyone who has a capital, probably, because, I repeat, no player plays to be the NPC and target of others, because one thing is if you are that way because you’re not good, others are better, PvP works like that. Another thing is if you are like that because someone has designed it at the table so that the vehicle you are on must be just this. These are two very different things. At least tell us, give us an answer. Because, I repeat, if you need to do a specific test, a large part of us will not do it unless forced by gameplay, and it’s fine that you are doing it, but at least those who want to do it know what they have to do and will do it. Otherwise, as I said, the trend is very negative. I’m not opening this as mere complaint, but to get a clear, serious answer on the purpose and balance of large ships in the game.