Ah, so there has not been any official statement to this topic then if I understand correctly.
Then I add my voice to those who "really hopw so" because I love full 6dof control with dual sticks + pedals. It gives me a proper sense of spaceflight. Especially the drift-aspect of space and the management of that drifting is for me the biggest part of the fun.
Hm, yea, I know this kind of concern and would s<y that "twitch shooter" is a rather subjective thing to say.
For me it highly depends on mostly the acceleration values if it gets to be too much of an too reaction based thing. The 6dof joystick control and "decoupled" drifting is not the problem in my view.
Overall I find 6dof control of ships (in vacuum of space) and the natural drift of that environment as essential to a spacegame/spaceship as the necessity to have a solid surface for cars to drive on or water for submarines.
If spaceships are not able to just drift in space or are unable to utilize 6dof flight and rather behave, for example, like airplanes, that for me would be like creating a submarine game where the submarines cannot float and drive on the ground of the sea like cars. It would be plainly illogical und for me personally a lot less fun.
Especially because it is the flight control in space-drifting which I find so fun and pleasing - not directly related to combat! And I would find it sad to make the space flight feel so much less than it could be just because of combat.
All this of course does not ease your worry about too reaction based combat gameplay.
I agree that it is better if planning your moves and intentions ahead has more importante than purely reaction to anothers move two seconds before.
Thought when I look at the ship building system specifics I have seen in the demo videos so far and extrapolate from that how I think it will work, then I would say that it will be a self regulating system.
What I mean is this:
Yes, one could build a ship that has strong acceleration in all directions.
But that would come at quite a cost, mostly at the cost of very fast fuel consumption and the need for many fuel tanks and due to that no space (weight-wise) for anything else.
Now if I have strong maneuvering thrusters and place them on my ship so that all directions are covered equally, I have to put quite a few thrusters on there which already adds quite some weight. And weight reduces agility/acceleration. Now to power all those thursters I need fueltanks, and because all my mav thrusters are big, using them always uses lots of fuel. But adding more fuel tanks adds more weight meaning that the more fueltanks we add the less fast the ship gets and we have to increase the size/strength of the thrusters and enter a vicious circle.
It is simply way more feasable or economically viable to pick one or two directions in which the ship has strong acceleration with main thrusters.
Then not to forget that we know that there are three types of engines.
Good in atmosphere
Good in space
Mediocre in both
In that above example it is impossible to add two of each engine type (let alone all three) because the weight would kill all benefit. So logically one would have to pick one of the three, limiting the use of the ship very much or allowing it only to have strong 6dof in space or atmosphere - or have it in both but in a limited way that might just break the whole benefit one might be after.