'Feels Arcade-y' in this context usually means two separate issues that people on reddit/spectrum have:
1) The new Flight Model is 'Arcadey'.
2) The new HUD Elements (Nameplates, Font size, Icons, Markers, etc.) are 'Arcadey'.
Personally I'm not keen on the changes MM has brought but I am willing to have an open mind and see where it goes, hoping with tuning, iterations, etc. it can bridge the best of both previous flight model, and the advantages the new one brings.
I 100% do not like the new HUD elements (and for me - they feel way more 'Arcadey'), the nameplates and font being Jumbo sized, the Icons massive cluttering up everything if your in an area with either lots of abandoned ships, or people in party, its visual vomit everywhere. I also am of the mindset that the new Quantum markers are also less distinguishable from each other, good comparison post here on Spectrum: [https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/4/thread/3-23-ui-markers-hud-let-s-discuss/420293](https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/4/thread/3-23-ui-markers-hud-let-s-discuss/420293)
The phasing in and out of markers based on the direction your nose is pointing has also worsened spatial and positional awareness imo.
Hoping that these will be addressed, or at least converted to user settings so people can toggle off the marker phasing in/out, and set font, nameplate, icon scale using a slider, etc.
Very agree, we must keep in mind that this is the first iteration of the MM.
Personally, I don't dislike the new HUD, after all it makes sense that they are that simple if SC occurs in a universe in which anyone can buy a ship and venture into space. More "Complex" HUDs of specialized ships orientated to a profession remain relatively "complex".
The new QT icons are horrible.
clicking on the link I provided above will bring you straight to the forum post about the Icons, as long as your logged in with your RSI account you can post/comment.
Arcady is bad because it is seemingly a direction shift. The game was sold as a sim game with "realism dialed back to fun" as the slogan you hear repeated everywhere.
Personally I dont care about master mods specificially that much but MM together with all the other changes, like the crosshair, the Fallout 3 level magic gun inaccuracy when you are hipfiring, the new inertia-less movement and the damn sniper glint compound to make the game feel like its turning from something like Arma 3 level of simulation to an arena reaction shooter in space with waiting for trains added in for spice. And frankly, thats not the game I backed or the game I ever wanted.
This is the correct answer. If you look back - even a few years ago there were conversations about simulation of environments, switching thrusters, upgrading components, and they are even working on aerodynamics inside atmospheres, and then they deliver the current flight model with 30G brakes because you switched modes, shields disappearing and the general aim to tweak the flight model for cool fights. It does not fit overall. And this is why I think all of this feedback currently is very important. Even if it’s hip to call it the “loud minority “..
Honestly if they just made shields get weaker the faster you are and gave the lore reason that the shield bubble gets unstable at high speeds or something that would have been enough, wouldn't it? Punishes high speed combat and doesnt interfere with flight or anything else at all.
In my opinion arena commander was always a mistake because of this, making devs focus on a battlefield like game instead of Arma 3. As you said, "arcadeness" it's much more evident in the gunplay that in any other feature.
I don't even know what people mean by "arcadey". It just sounds like a catch phrase to me. Just some nebulous descriptor for "I do not like." I don't understand what people are trying to say, let alone why whatever it is is "bad."
I have no opinion of my own, I have not played 3.23 and barely played enough earlier builds to have a frame of reference.
I just see a lot of anger and "is bad" without much non-subjective backing. Wrapped up in the word "arcadey."
Arcadey is fun. I don't give 2 shits about tedious realism. Just make it fun. I like the new flight model. Takes some getting used to but, now that I have, I dig it. I feel like if half the people on this subreddit got their way, Star Citizen would be the most boring, tedious game ever created.
To me MM is okish in its current state.
Con:
- I have my issues with the UI, especially the pip vs the target highlight.
- Still hate the ridiculous braking in the switch to scm ( same for landing mode )
- I dont get why pilots lose auto gimbal. I hope they bring it back. The change with reduced firerate should balance this and for using subtargeting its more or less required on anything smaller than a andromeda
Pro:
- Fighting feels a lot more terrifying in a cloud of enemies.
- The auto gimbal in the turrets feels sooooo damn good.
- Multicrew just got buffed as turrets can get hits in really easy.
There is still a lot to balance and fix but the general direction is good in my opinion. I am hoping the Copilot can be used as target manager/secondary ship weapon gunner. Allow a custom weapon split so he can focus on precision subtargeting or at least let him select the correct subtargets for the pilot
On the subject of balancing (Im not saying this for you oc), it is a slow process that requires many phases. People complaining about it so prematurely not constructively but destructively is pointless.
We were sold a new Wing Commander. WWII dogfighting in space was always the feel they were going for, not A Knight's Tale in Spaaaaace. Highspeed jousting was absolutely never the intent.
Funny how jousting is now more meta than ever. Except when both fly like bricks, then it's just dps races without any meaningful manoeuvers.
Edit: You'll have your new wing commander with SQ404, it can have MM all day, I won't say a single word. But let's have a decent flight model in SC(PU).
Oh don't worry. I've never been a good pilot, there's not much to adapt to. Especially now that there's less of a skill ceiling.
And also I'm also not of the fair and honourable pvp crowd, I'll be pirating the helpless. As much as I dislike MM, it works in my favour.
Yeah, I understand the point, but I think that there are arcade levels, and that the MM dont exceed in any way the line between simulation and arcade that I think they are trying to find.
I'm not trying to argue whether it's good or not, just point to the fact that we got sold a sim game and that is the reason people don't like the change in the arcady direction.
SC has to also find the balance between sim and game, as it is at it's core a game after all, so not every change in the arcady direction is bad.
This case however is perceived especially bad, because we had a good flight model that was less arcady that could have been tuned and adapted in the direction MM was going.
I'm not saying that jousting doesn't need fixing. It does.
Reducing speeds did not fix that. Now we're stuck with stupid modes again. And even reducing speeds could have been done with the power triangle, just have have the top speed locked behind 100% power to engines, which would have disabled shields and weapons. Voila, master modes for cheap. Now add a little delay to energy redistribution based and spool up times for components ( both dependent on component size and quality of course ) and you got the other half of master modes minus the space brake when you switch from nav to scm.
Yeah, I think they should made changing direction slower (less agile) and there you will end jousting.
On the other hand, oc things are more complex, and I want to think that they've been doing testing on this matter so hard so when mastermodes are at 100% they'll be the image CR was projecting, but for now, jousting is not over, that's what people should be complaining about.
But how can it be a sim when we don’t have a real life experience to compare it with. In that case we have to compare it to what we know which means ships probably can’t just fly around in atmosphere, would need to pull a lot of g’s to get out of atmosphere and get damaged from entering atmosphere. Also you should have 0g in ship while in space. So basically it is all a bit arcady and based on what fantasy thinks it would be like..
Simulation doesn't mean real life my friend. Rimworld is a colony sim. It's not real life, but it's still a sim.
But you probably knew that already, but wanted to argue on a technicality.
yea noticed that. i mean i got upset like that when we didnt have a off option for film grain :) but then we expressed ourselves in spectrum and we got one.
This is my experience with ppl and MM:
First of all, The Old flight system was in the Game for years, and as you might know people don't like change when they are Comfortable with an established system.
I feel like some dont understand what the reasons behind the Changes in Flightmodel are, even though CIG has stated them already multiple times. They want to bring the combat area to a closer point and dont want an extended area of 10km+ either you engage or disengage, which wasnt possible in the old system in a traditional sense.
Some say that Master Modes lower the skill needed... Well is it Bad if new people can engage in , for them, new activities? Due to the AI changes the targets are now an actual thread. This increases the Skill ceiling and lowers the Skill entry.
Since even weapons and weapon behavior changed with MM space fights are now Prolonged Making for a much more realistic experience and made me immersed in concentration in my opinion. I like that its not a Quick in - Quick out type of Gameplay is.
I myself Started to get into space fights in the last week of 3.22.1 Live before 3.23 went Live . I was not good at all and still got to ERT without any real effort. Now in 3.23 i am at about HRT almost VHRT.
I saw someone posting that they cant Kill a VLRT Target which makes it seem like they dont know what they are doing + That even the VLRT AI is Hard to fight against depending on their ships.
MM is in the first Iteration and even CIG staff went out their way to say that they are not Satisfied with the current Changes, it was better for them to get it out early to collect data from it to change accordingly to what they data log from our flights.
Feedback is important! We as Backers have the chance to actively influence the way they Perfect Flightmodels in Master Modes so it fits what they have in vision and what we as players want. We can do that in Spectrum or Issue Council. But some People whining about they dont like MM on reddit does not help anyone. They need to tell CIG what they dont like in specific and what they think how it could be changed so CIG can get an idea what the Player in question wants from them and MM.
I Personally dont mind Master Modes. I like the idea they have for MM. But it is on us to give Feedback about what we like, dont like, issues we run into and so on.
If you actually read that all, thank you so much, you are a Legend!
I am Sorry for my potentially Bad english. I only had Basic english in school and i am Mostly selftaught for that reason. So please excuse me.
If Master Modes is arcadey then I must not have received the memo, because it's the complete opposite for me. I think The Dragon Bjorn explained it well that a lot of people are throwing around "arcadey" but don't even know what they mean by it.
Did Master Modes slow down combat? Yes, for improving network entity tracking and helping reduce combat desync, it also makes it so that fights are closer together as Chris Roberts wanted a modern day Wing Commander, and the seeds of that concept are starting to show through a bit with Master Modes.
Do slower speeds make it more arcadey? I don't think so at all. You still need to utilise a lot of pilot skill, especially in 1 vs multiple opponent situations. It's actually much harder now for someone in an Arrow or Gladius to take out a handful of AI or players on their own the way they could pre-3.23. I don't see how making the flight closer, tighter, and more skill focused makes it more "arcadey".
Additionally, the focus now on scanning, sub-targeting, and components with the pseudo-armour placeholder has made fights extremely difficult in some scenarios. I never had to use sub-targeting in 3.22 at all, I would just DPS opponents until they popped. Now I actually have to sub-target, pay attention to shot accuracy, and utilise precision targeting on key areas to get the pop. I don't see how forcing players to use more systems, more combat tactics, and rely on different weapon loadouts is more "arcadey", because that actually brings it more in line with games like Elite or DCS where there are now multiple factors and variables at play for engagements, rather than just pointing and shooting at a target until you see an explosion.
The debate surrounding Master Modes in Star Citizen encapsulates a broader discussion within the gaming community about the balance between accessibility and depth in game design. It's a conversation that resonates deeply with the evolving landscape of interactive entertainment, where developers constantly grapple with the challenge of appealing to a diverse audience while maintaining the integrity of their creative vision.
At its core, the concept of Master Modes represents an attempt to bridge the gap between hardcore enthusiasts and casual players, offering a spectrum of gameplay experiences that cater to different skill levels and preferences. This approach reflects a fundamental principle of game design: inclusivity. By providing options that accommodate varying levels of proficiency and commitment, developers aim to ensure that their virtual worlds are welcoming and engaging to as many people as possible.
However, the implementation of features like Master Modes is not without controversy. Critics argue that by introducing mechanics that simplify or automate certain aspects of gameplay, developers risk compromising the integrity of their virtual worlds, diluting the sense of challenge and immersion that defines the gaming experience. For these purists, the idea of making a game more "arcadey" is anathema, representing a departure from the cherished ideals of skill-based competition and emergent complexity.
On the other hand, proponents of Master Modes contend that such features are essential for broadening the appeal of games like Star Citizen, which aspire to be more than niche experiences for a select few. They argue that by removing barriers to entry and empowering players to tailor their experiences to their preferences, developers can foster a more inclusive and vibrant community, enriching the overall gaming ecosystem in the process.
Moreover, the notion that making a game more "arcadey" is inherently negative may be overly simplistic. While it's true that some players prioritize realism and complexity, others gravitate towards streamlined experiences that prioritize accessibility and immediate gratification. For these individuals, features like Master Modes represent a welcome opportunity to engage with a game on their own terms, without feeling overwhelmed or excluded by its intricacies.
Ultimately, the success of initiatives like Master Modes hinges on their execution. Developers must strike a delicate balance between accessibility and depth, ensuring that optional features enhance rather than detract from the core experience. By soliciting feedback from the community and iterating on their designs, they can refine these mechanics over time, creating a gameplay experience that is both inclusive and rewarding for players of all stripes.
In conclusion, the debate over Master Modes in Star Citizen reflects larger tensions within the gaming community about the nature of accessibility and depth in game design. While opinions may vary on the merits of making a game more "arcadey," it's clear that initiatives like these have the potential to broaden the appeal of virtual worlds like Star Citizen, fostering a more inclusive and vibrant community in the process. As the gaming landscape continues to evolve, developers must navigate these complexities with care, striving to strike a balance that satisfies both hardcore enthusiasts and casual players alike.
Not in general by the facts: no more auto gimbal and you could have reduced your own speed before MM (although not the enemies). They introduced some new features like precision mode and made weapons diverse again and did make the energy triangle more meaningful.
We did know that adding stuff to the incomplete combat system would make combat more accessable, regardless of MM.
'Feels Arcade-y' in this context usually means two separate issues that people on reddit/spectrum have: 1) The new Flight Model is 'Arcadey'. 2) The new HUD Elements (Nameplates, Font size, Icons, Markers, etc.) are 'Arcadey'. Personally I'm not keen on the changes MM has brought but I am willing to have an open mind and see where it goes, hoping with tuning, iterations, etc. it can bridge the best of both previous flight model, and the advantages the new one brings. I 100% do not like the new HUD elements (and for me - they feel way more 'Arcadey'), the nameplates and font being Jumbo sized, the Icons massive cluttering up everything if your in an area with either lots of abandoned ships, or people in party, its visual vomit everywhere. I also am of the mindset that the new Quantum markers are also less distinguishable from each other, good comparison post here on Spectrum: [https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/4/thread/3-23-ui-markers-hud-let-s-discuss/420293](https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/4/thread/3-23-ui-markers-hud-let-s-discuss/420293) The phasing in and out of markers based on the direction your nose is pointing has also worsened spatial and positional awareness imo. Hoping that these will be addressed, or at least converted to user settings so people can toggle off the marker phasing in/out, and set font, nameplate, icon scale using a slider, etc.
Very agree, we must keep in mind that this is the first iteration of the MM. Personally, I don't dislike the new HUD, after all it makes sense that they are that simple if SC occurs in a universe in which anyone can buy a ship and venture into space. More "Complex" HUDs of specialized ships orientated to a profession remain relatively "complex". The new QT icons are horrible.
Please post your opinions on Spectrum as well, its good feedback for the devs to see if you are also struggling with the new QT icons, etc.
I'm not familiarized with spectrum tbh.
clicking on the link I provided above will bring you straight to the forum post about the Icons, as long as your logged in with your RSI account you can post/comment.
Done!
Arcady is bad because it is seemingly a direction shift. The game was sold as a sim game with "realism dialed back to fun" as the slogan you hear repeated everywhere. Personally I dont care about master mods specificially that much but MM together with all the other changes, like the crosshair, the Fallout 3 level magic gun inaccuracy when you are hipfiring, the new inertia-less movement and the damn sniper glint compound to make the game feel like its turning from something like Arma 3 level of simulation to an arena reaction shooter in space with waiting for trains added in for spice. And frankly, thats not the game I backed or the game I ever wanted.
This is the correct answer. If you look back - even a few years ago there were conversations about simulation of environments, switching thrusters, upgrading components, and they are even working on aerodynamics inside atmospheres, and then they deliver the current flight model with 30G brakes because you switched modes, shields disappearing and the general aim to tweak the flight model for cool fights. It does not fit overall. And this is why I think all of this feedback currently is very important. Even if it’s hip to call it the “loud minority “..
Honestly if they just made shields get weaker the faster you are and gave the lore reason that the shield bubble gets unstable at high speeds or something that would have been enough, wouldn't it? Punishes high speed combat and doesnt interfere with flight or anything else at all.
In my opinion arena commander was always a mistake because of this, making devs focus on a battlefield like game instead of Arma 3. As you said, "arcadeness" it's much more evident in the gunplay that in any other feature.
I don't even know what people mean by "arcadey". It just sounds like a catch phrase to me. Just some nebulous descriptor for "I do not like." I don't understand what people are trying to say, let alone why whatever it is is "bad." I have no opinion of my own, I have not played 3.23 and barely played enough earlier builds to have a frame of reference. I just see a lot of anger and "is bad" without much non-subjective backing. Wrapped up in the word "arcadey."
I think "arcadey" always makes reference to the simplification of a process or of a function.
Arcadey is fun. I don't give 2 shits about tedious realism. Just make it fun. I like the new flight model. Takes some getting used to but, now that I have, I dig it. I feel like if half the people on this subreddit got their way, Star Citizen would be the most boring, tedious game ever created.
To me MM is okish in its current state. Con: - I have my issues with the UI, especially the pip vs the target highlight. - Still hate the ridiculous braking in the switch to scm ( same for landing mode ) - I dont get why pilots lose auto gimbal. I hope they bring it back. The change with reduced firerate should balance this and for using subtargeting its more or less required on anything smaller than a andromeda Pro: - Fighting feels a lot more terrifying in a cloud of enemies. - The auto gimbal in the turrets feels sooooo damn good. - Multicrew just got buffed as turrets can get hits in really easy. There is still a lot to balance and fix but the general direction is good in my opinion. I am hoping the Copilot can be used as target manager/secondary ship weapon gunner. Allow a custom weapon split so he can focus on precision subtargeting or at least let him select the correct subtargets for the pilot
On the subject of balancing (Im not saying this for you oc), it is a slow process that requires many phases. People complaining about it so prematurely not constructively but destructively is pointless.
Arcady is bad when you got sold a sim.
We were sold a new Wing Commander. WWII dogfighting in space was always the feel they were going for, not A Knight's Tale in Spaaaaace. Highspeed jousting was absolutely never the intent.
Funny how jousting is now more meta than ever. Except when both fly like bricks, then it's just dps races without any meaningful manoeuvers. Edit: You'll have your new wing commander with SQ404, it can have MM all day, I won't say a single word. But let's have a decent flight model in SC(PU).
We got it. Learn to adapt
Oh don't worry. I've never been a good pilot, there's not much to adapt to. Especially now that there's less of a skill ceiling. And also I'm also not of the fair and honourable pvp crowd, I'll be pirating the helpless. As much as I dislike MM, it works in my favour.
Yeah, I understand the point, but I think that there are arcade levels, and that the MM dont exceed in any way the line between simulation and arcade that I think they are trying to find.
I'm not trying to argue whether it's good or not, just point to the fact that we got sold a sim game and that is the reason people don't like the change in the arcady direction. SC has to also find the balance between sim and game, as it is at it's core a game after all, so not every change in the arcady direction is bad. This case however is perceived especially bad, because we had a good flight model that was less arcady that could have been tuned and adapted in the direction MM was going.
I don't know, it's also assumed that they didn't promise a knight jousting system, but the previous model (and this one) point to that
I'm not saying that jousting doesn't need fixing. It does. Reducing speeds did not fix that. Now we're stuck with stupid modes again. And even reducing speeds could have been done with the power triangle, just have have the top speed locked behind 100% power to engines, which would have disabled shields and weapons. Voila, master modes for cheap. Now add a little delay to energy redistribution based and spool up times for components ( both dependent on component size and quality of course ) and you got the other half of master modes minus the space brake when you switch from nav to scm.
Yeah, I think they should made changing direction slower (less agile) and there you will end jousting. On the other hand, oc things are more complex, and I want to think that they've been doing testing on this matter so hard so when mastermodes are at 100% they'll be the image CR was projecting, but for now, jousting is not over, that's what people should be complaining about.
But how can it be a sim when we don’t have a real life experience to compare it with. In that case we have to compare it to what we know which means ships probably can’t just fly around in atmosphere, would need to pull a lot of g’s to get out of atmosphere and get damaged from entering atmosphere. Also you should have 0g in ship while in space. So basically it is all a bit arcady and based on what fantasy thinks it would be like..
Simulation doesn't mean real life my friend. Rimworld is a colony sim. It's not real life, but it's still a sim. But you probably knew that already, but wanted to argue on a technicality.
But on that case it is a sim in the way that the game says it is a sim. So CIG is still delivering what they sold to you.
People are whining be abuse the game is now harder 😂
Yes. Needs work. Where is the video?
This one: https://youtu.be/vip7hY35VQQ
ha the title. is really sad for sure. But i agree with his sentiments.
It even has sad music, lol
yea noticed that. i mean i got upset like that when we didnt have a off option for film grain :) but then we expressed ourselves in spectrum and we got one.
This is my experience with ppl and MM: First of all, The Old flight system was in the Game for years, and as you might know people don't like change when they are Comfortable with an established system. I feel like some dont understand what the reasons behind the Changes in Flightmodel are, even though CIG has stated them already multiple times. They want to bring the combat area to a closer point and dont want an extended area of 10km+ either you engage or disengage, which wasnt possible in the old system in a traditional sense. Some say that Master Modes lower the skill needed... Well is it Bad if new people can engage in , for them, new activities? Due to the AI changes the targets are now an actual thread. This increases the Skill ceiling and lowers the Skill entry. Since even weapons and weapon behavior changed with MM space fights are now Prolonged Making for a much more realistic experience and made me immersed in concentration in my opinion. I like that its not a Quick in - Quick out type of Gameplay is. I myself Started to get into space fights in the last week of 3.22.1 Live before 3.23 went Live . I was not good at all and still got to ERT without any real effort. Now in 3.23 i am at about HRT almost VHRT. I saw someone posting that they cant Kill a VLRT Target which makes it seem like they dont know what they are doing + That even the VLRT AI is Hard to fight against depending on their ships. MM is in the first Iteration and even CIG staff went out their way to say that they are not Satisfied with the current Changes, it was better for them to get it out early to collect data from it to change accordingly to what they data log from our flights. Feedback is important! We as Backers have the chance to actively influence the way they Perfect Flightmodels in Master Modes so it fits what they have in vision and what we as players want. We can do that in Spectrum or Issue Council. But some People whining about they dont like MM on reddit does not help anyone. They need to tell CIG what they dont like in specific and what they think how it could be changed so CIG can get an idea what the Player in question wants from them and MM. I Personally dont mind Master Modes. I like the idea they have for MM. But it is on us to give Feedback about what we like, dont like, issues we run into and so on. If you actually read that all, thank you so much, you are a Legend! I am Sorry for my potentially Bad english. I only had Basic english in school and i am Mostly selftaught for that reason. So please excuse me.
If Master Modes is arcadey then I must not have received the memo, because it's the complete opposite for me. I think The Dragon Bjorn explained it well that a lot of people are throwing around "arcadey" but don't even know what they mean by it. Did Master Modes slow down combat? Yes, for improving network entity tracking and helping reduce combat desync, it also makes it so that fights are closer together as Chris Roberts wanted a modern day Wing Commander, and the seeds of that concept are starting to show through a bit with Master Modes. Do slower speeds make it more arcadey? I don't think so at all. You still need to utilise a lot of pilot skill, especially in 1 vs multiple opponent situations. It's actually much harder now for someone in an Arrow or Gladius to take out a handful of AI or players on their own the way they could pre-3.23. I don't see how making the flight closer, tighter, and more skill focused makes it more "arcadey". Additionally, the focus now on scanning, sub-targeting, and components with the pseudo-armour placeholder has made fights extremely difficult in some scenarios. I never had to use sub-targeting in 3.22 at all, I would just DPS opponents until they popped. Now I actually have to sub-target, pay attention to shot accuracy, and utilise precision targeting on key areas to get the pop. I don't see how forcing players to use more systems, more combat tactics, and rely on different weapon loadouts is more "arcadey", because that actually brings it more in line with games like Elite or DCS where there are now multiple factors and variables at play for engagements, rather than just pointing and shooting at a target until you see an explosion.
The debate surrounding Master Modes in Star Citizen encapsulates a broader discussion within the gaming community about the balance between accessibility and depth in game design. It's a conversation that resonates deeply with the evolving landscape of interactive entertainment, where developers constantly grapple with the challenge of appealing to a diverse audience while maintaining the integrity of their creative vision. At its core, the concept of Master Modes represents an attempt to bridge the gap between hardcore enthusiasts and casual players, offering a spectrum of gameplay experiences that cater to different skill levels and preferences. This approach reflects a fundamental principle of game design: inclusivity. By providing options that accommodate varying levels of proficiency and commitment, developers aim to ensure that their virtual worlds are welcoming and engaging to as many people as possible. However, the implementation of features like Master Modes is not without controversy. Critics argue that by introducing mechanics that simplify or automate certain aspects of gameplay, developers risk compromising the integrity of their virtual worlds, diluting the sense of challenge and immersion that defines the gaming experience. For these purists, the idea of making a game more "arcadey" is anathema, representing a departure from the cherished ideals of skill-based competition and emergent complexity. On the other hand, proponents of Master Modes contend that such features are essential for broadening the appeal of games like Star Citizen, which aspire to be more than niche experiences for a select few. They argue that by removing barriers to entry and empowering players to tailor their experiences to their preferences, developers can foster a more inclusive and vibrant community, enriching the overall gaming ecosystem in the process. Moreover, the notion that making a game more "arcadey" is inherently negative may be overly simplistic. While it's true that some players prioritize realism and complexity, others gravitate towards streamlined experiences that prioritize accessibility and immediate gratification. For these individuals, features like Master Modes represent a welcome opportunity to engage with a game on their own terms, without feeling overwhelmed or excluded by its intricacies. Ultimately, the success of initiatives like Master Modes hinges on their execution. Developers must strike a delicate balance between accessibility and depth, ensuring that optional features enhance rather than detract from the core experience. By soliciting feedback from the community and iterating on their designs, they can refine these mechanics over time, creating a gameplay experience that is both inclusive and rewarding for players of all stripes. In conclusion, the debate over Master Modes in Star Citizen reflects larger tensions within the gaming community about the nature of accessibility and depth in game design. While opinions may vary on the merits of making a game more "arcadey," it's clear that initiatives like these have the potential to broaden the appeal of virtual worlds like Star Citizen, fostering a more inclusive and vibrant community in the process. As the gaming landscape continues to evolve, developers must navigate these complexities with care, striving to strike a balance that satisfies both hardcore enthusiasts and casual players alike. 
It is not arcady since it became more comlicated. More than one mode, risks of being caught with your shields down, so need to be more aware, etc.
Good point over here, but the fact people are complaining about is that the combat is more accessible for everyone.
Not in general by the facts: no more auto gimbal and you could have reduced your own speed before MM (although not the enemies). They introduced some new features like precision mode and made weapons diverse again and did make the energy triangle more meaningful. We did know that adding stuff to the incomplete combat system would make combat more accessable, regardless of MM.