@@BuzzCutPsycho yeah, one is exploration and the other one is multi-role with different variants, and each can carry ursa or average amount of cargo...
This ship will go through lots of changes. People in the game should pick a ship or two that they really like and just use those until all the upcoming mechanics are in the PU. Armor is going to change everything…
@BuzzCutPsycho lmao. This (CIG not the video) is so lazy it's painful to watch. I knew, the moment they mentioned these generic archetypes, they were going to fk ships up. Step 1: classify the Connie, Corsair, and Redeemer all as "gunships". Step 2: realize one of these gunships is obviously smaller than the others. Step 3: gimp the smaller gunship to fall in line behind its big brothers. Cross shopping a Redeemer and a Connie/Corsair is like cross shopping a Ford F150 and a Toyota Camry. The Camry can carry your family of 4 around town. The F150 can carry your family of 4 around town... but it can also pull a trailer, haul a pallet of materials in the bed, go off road, etc etc. The Redeemer is solely a fist fighting combat ship, the cargo, exploration, VIP passenger carrying missile boat is not. If they wanted to change anything, they need to defang the civilian cargo ship to have less pilot firepower than the combined firepower of the military heavy gunship's two manned turrets.
I don't own a Redeemer nor a Corsair so I don't feel the "bait-and-switch" anger some are feeling right about now. Balancing always sucks when your favorite character/power/weapon/ship is nerfed in gaming. What is different about Star Citizen is that these aren't token amounts people are spending - it's $200 - $750 dollars or more. Perhaps CIG should adopt a policy of "you get your actual money back without question (not just the ability to melt) if we change your $ pledge ship within x months of introduction." Certainly would add pressure on CIG to get it right from the beginning.
I won't argue this one. I own almost every ship in the game and don't personally feel entitled to anything like that. But I don't expect anyone to feel that way. I just want a good and balanced game.
Bait and switch is a huge term to throw around and most have no justification for using it. If you want bait and switch, here's an example of a real bait and switch. The Retaliator concept in its original form. Later modules added. The bait and switch part is the fact they devalued the original concept that people paid for and got LTI. This was removed in the rework of the Retaliator with modules, and later a complete removal of all modules entirely. THAT, is bait and switch. And why I melted mine, because I got burned from it in terms of monetary value. Nothing of what they did to the Redeemer now qualifies for bait and switch it was not devalued, nor was its design changed and made more expensive to get the same items. A better phrase would be "Balancing Pass." What happen with the Retaliator was a monetization change that cost people money from the original concept.
What bothers me about the Corsair nerf is the utter illogic of it. By all means take weapons from the pilot. But rather than split them between the pilot and the nose gunner give all four of the S5s to the gunner in a chin turret. That actually makes way more sense from a design and function perspective.
@@ThomasD66 This is just people not paying attention to the fine print. No one paid attention to the fact that CIG reserves the right to make any and all necessary adjustments to the concepts before and after. Meaning any ship is subject to change...that's even including the Retaliator when it first introduced. I never got one because I always felt that they wouldnt be able to get the modules working properly and lo I was right on that front but the people who bought it got mad about it...even though it said on the damn thing when you pledge that CIG reserves the right. Bait and switch nah....people unable to read and comprehend...yes.
@@ThomasD66 Yes giving the co-pilot control of fixed nose guns and also a remote turret on the back of the ship makes absolutely no sense. Polaris is getting its turrets up-gunned so it is quite clear what CIG is doing. They are forcing people to multi crew ships. But then you look at the Andromeda and it received a new gun placement for the lower pilot weapons allowing them to be up-gunned to s5. Is it going to now be made less maneuverable than the corsair? At this point I want to sell my account and buy just a starter package and no extra money spent. Bought Inferno, it got basically nerfed to useless. Bought Corsair, it is getting nerfed.
I've been saying this on spectrum. If the Redeemer handles like a Cutlass Black or Vanguard Warden the nerfs are fine. I am beyond relieved to hear that it will be close to that. Also, fixing the location of the jumpseats / sleeping quarters would make a lot more sense, but I don't think they'll spend the time sadly enough. Maybe in the future we'll get lucky!
The turret placement has always been my biggest gripe, though I see the jump-seat issue as well. The Redeemer is a gunship/dropship. Ground support is supposed to be one of it's primary functions and neither turret is well placed for that. The turrets should be side-mounted, maybe with a bias toward a lower arc. Teams True and Troyka had promising initial concepts in that respect. It's a shame that no-one was able to combine all the good design ideas from TNGS into an actual well-designed ship.
@@gyratingwolpertiger6851 Do you still really believe that? After all the shady practices CIG has been doing? Don't talk about ship roles, they only care about the money a new ship can bring as many ships are overlapping the so called roles right now. Heck, they don't even know how the frigging flight model is going to be as they don't have a clear vision for it. Don't be naive, the "balance" is not for the game's sake, it's for the money.
wow I did not realize how close the vanguard and redeemer are in size. It makes sense to trade shields for better handling, but compared to a corsair it still sounds under gunned for a “gun ship”. We will see how it works out i guess :D. At the moment everything is so bugged that I don't even bother to test the changes they make.
Put the jump seats and a gun rack downstairs, put the beds and amenities upstairs, though I would make the kitchen area a lot smaller. And make what was the hab module, a jump support module to swap out. Also with s2 shields, there may end up being more room to move things around a bit. Especially if they space out the shields, rather then cluster them in one spot.
The living quarters won't fit upstairs. The hull on the upper level is more narrow than the hull on the lower level, which means that you can't squeeze the beds in.
Not entirely sure on this one. Always had a soft spot for redeemer because it made light fighter cretins seethe with rage. "A HIND SHOULDN'T BEAT AN F-22! REEE!" But you're right. The thing is pretty small, even if I do find it questionable that anyone will sit on those turrets anymore. It was ultimately combination of survivability, firepower and ability to make Avengerone seethe with rage when he couldn't tricord a fully crewed Redeemer to death solo that made it one of the only ships worth Multi-crew. Problem is, it punched up and down because it was a pocket hammerhead. If while fully crewed, it can hard-counter light fighters, I will consider the rebalancing success. If it fails at that, the ship itself is just another multi-crew ship without multi-crew.
This is what CiG marketing department should have said....instead they allowed the obvious to come through, which is that they are nerfing any possible old ships that would outcompete the new gunship or gunships they plan to sell at IAE or Citizencon. Wish you would have mentioned this in the video. The problem with this is that they will just constantly manipulate the meta and power of ships to continue to sell new ships until the last possible minute, which we all know will be another 10 years minimum, so no one should get comfortable with the way anything is balanced at any given time. When the new "literally anything" comes out (we all saw how the ATLS went), all previous competitors will "suffer" and be brought into line below the new "shiny" cash grab...This is the reason multi-crew will never be brought into line, despite it being a very simple fix to at least make it viable. They want solo pilots to keep buying and flying big expensive ships. If 3-8 people can share one ship, sales suffer. Period... I've said it before and I'll say it again, CiG is simply and truly a large marketing company with a small game development team. Not the other way around....sooner folks realize this, sooner they can save themselves thousands and a whole lot of frustration arguing about balance changes....
No doubt. But I do not think too much nefarious play is behind this decision and is just flat out balance adjustments. Even shields are being changed now.
Idk if that's even true. Looking at the data mined ships the next competitor will come with way less pilot fire power that a Connie or Corsair but have better turrets.
Ships shouldn't be balanced by size, they should be balanced by role. That's what CIG used to say and it made a lot of sense. The Redeemer has the CREW requirements and PRICE tag of a large ship. It was intended as step between the basic multicrew generalists and the dedicated military ships such as the Perseus. Call it a "Starship Captain's" first command. As initially launched the ship was amazing. Sure it was a little sluggish, but not overtly so. The turrets worked perfectly until the "fighter lobby" complained about not being able to solo it. Then they were nerfed in terms of rotation. That's why they are bad. Then they complained further, and the mobility was nerfed. And now both, protection and firepower have been nerfed. Now, it is no longer a Gunship. It's durability doesn't warrant packing 5 people inside it, and it can't do the only job it is supposed to do: fighting. It is, in fact, worse than a hurricane. And worse that the generalist multicrew ships that were supposed to be one step below it. And those cost about 1/3rd less!!!! Even worse, the Redeemer gives everything in order to perform its only mission. So while you can get a lot of gameplay from a Connie (even Solo), you can only play a Redeemer with a crew because it's Solo firepower is worse than that of a medium fighter. If there wasn't a gap between the Mid-sized ships and the dedicated combatants it would be less of an insult. But there is actually NOTHING in the game to fill that niche now that the Redeemer has been demoted. Are you supposed to go from a Connie to a Hammerhead/M2/Perseus directly with nothing in between? It may be a bit of a grind in-game. And I mean several Tens of millions. I'd also like to see what CIG plans to release to fill that gap... because I am pretty sure it'll be pretty much what the Redeemer was at launch. Maybe a little big bigger. I really suggest you take a real look at a couple of the posts made in September on the Redeemer's forum. The problem with balancing by size is quite well explained there.
@@BuzzCutPsycho Size is, at best, a secondary factor. It shouldn't by far be the most important one. As CIG themselves stated at the time of the Redeemer's launch, the ship was built around the components it needs in order to fulfill its mission. It'd be like saying you need to bring the Polaris down to the armament of the 890 because they are similar in size. Or the Hammerhead to the armament of a Gemini. They have different roles and different niches. The dedicated combatants have high price tags, high crew requirements, and high mission requirements. The Redeemer was not a heavy fighter, and it should not be anywhere near a heavy fighter. Again, drop by the Redeemer's forum and look at the Balancing Size over role post. You'll find John Crewe's clips about the Redeemer at launch and a breakdown of what the ship is supposed to be.
@@CptFugu The problem is as long as A1 knows some low level dev in CIG we're going to have issues with the fighter lobby. I swear that group is the biggest bunch of crybabies. I do overall agree but we're also missing parts and in the grand scheme of things just because its nerf'd now does not mean it wont get re-balanced again and get buffed. At this point in the development cycle CIG needs to start putting together a dedicated balance team that is isolated from TTV/UA-camr input. Ignore stat and played numbers per ship and just evaluate each ship based on the role its supposed to complete.
Coming soon! I'm gonna put together a more detailed video about that one. But to answer I support it on the condition the ship guns become turrets. And turrets are changed. In general I think the corsair and Connie the way they were designed were a major barrier to preventing multi crew since the pilot had all the power. Too much fire power and durability for one player. Not enough survivability for a crew. Didnt make sense.
I’m in agreement with the shields. But the Redeemer was a Gunship. The proper way to use the Redeemer was to fly parallel to large ships and the size 5 advantage was the range. Thats why S5 is/was supposed to be the first “capital class” gun size. So yes I agree almost completely with you on the smaller faster ship being a demon against fighters. But that wasn’t the purpose of the Redeemer. To match that to a current use aircraft, also called a “gunship” is the AC-130 Spooky. Large, slow, but with deadly purpose. Which was oversized guns that outraged its targets. The problems we have with that now is the “greedy pilot” syndrome that we currently have. A proper Redeemer pilot flys parallel and 2-4 turrets turn on that target. 2 from out of range. When we have done this it makes slaying large ships very easy. Unfortunately “team play” is a far dream for the last 2 generations….. so you don’t see it.
@@charliemcawesome5012 did you type out that whole response without watching the video in it's entirety? your first mistake is comparing a fictional space combat ship to real world modern day air plane. you do realize that an ac-130 specializes in CAS right? it's not like you have ac-130's targeting large naval vessels IRL or anything like using a redeemer to take out large capital class ships
I've been telling people complaining about the shield balance post in The Spectrum recently that we don't know the final numbers for multiple variables still so we have no idea if a ship is actually nerfed or not. I feel vindicated seeing those numbers. And we still don't know about how armor, resource network/engineering, component modifiers, etc are going to change ship balances.
If 2 2xs4 turrets actually did anything to scare fighters and they increase the speed by a considerable margin, I would consider it balanced. As it is the only reason to have 3 people in one ship was for the massive dps of 4xs5 and the tanky shields. Right now considering the rumored changes to the Corsair, I feel like they are nerfing all the high dps ships so that the Polaris and whatever other new ships they release this November look better in comparison so people will spend money. I say this as my orgs -Banu MM- Polaris owner. So while this might make it balanced it also makes it completely redundant and a waste of 2 potential pilots. Basically CIG needs to fix turrets because it's been years and it's starting to get ridiculous. So yea. TL;DR I agree with you.
A lot of people are missing, you're not missing it, but are missing that TURRETS ARE THE MAIN ISSUE AND THEY SUCK. The fact they suck is why these bigger ships also suck. No changes are going to address that.
I enjoyed the deemer while she lasted. I agree it never made sense to have a ship that small with near the same firepower and shields as a hammer head. That said, still bummed it got nerfed so bad but it makes 100% sense. I melted it for a reclaimer.
80-70% increase in yaw and pitch it's actually pretty good, and 2 dual s4 turrets may be better for light/medium fighter kill, I mean the battle cat was scary with its turrets, now an agile ship that can chase you with 4 s4 shooting at you it's scary And no my wife told me that the bigger ones hurt 😢
I really wish size 4’s were better Vs smaller fighters. Unfortunately the meta is for fighters to kite multi-crew ships at ranges where they can hit the ship but the ship can barely hit them. Reducing the Deemers effective range and DPS from S5 to S4 is going to make fighting fighter even worse for her 😔.
@@jimc7022 they could easily fix that by reducing fighters range to 600m and turrets range to 1500m, now fighters need to be in the deadly range in order to hit big ships And if the deemer can chase fighters, like I said, it's a fast maneuverable monster, even with the current ranges it would be able to deal some serious damage
I'm not complaining about these changes, but the Redeemer was the quintessential gunship to me, with a role akin to that of the AC 130H Spectre, laying waste to a whole city block of ground targets, or perforate the hull of bigger ships like the Hammerhead to open access for squadrons. It seems to lose a lot of this capability now and I'm not sure what role it's supposed to fill now.
@@luistigerfox That would honestly be a bit disappointing since we've not only got light, medium and other heavy fighters for that particular job, but also the Hammerhead, meaning that the Redeemer would have been changed from being a Gunship, into being redundant.
Yet another great video. Redeemer always looked like a super vanguard to me. I agree the jump seats should be first floor and beds in second floor.. This ship should be able to equal 3 vanguards if not 4 in firepower depending on how many gunners.
"Balanced" to boost sales on the next ship that then gets "balanced" itself. I respect the marketing team. They're sticking with that same formula to goad all the suckers
It is that pre sales nerf time of the year :) Infinite monkeys theory, eventually marketing accidentally got something right, even if it might be by accident.
I'm excited to see its performance, half the missile payload of the harbinger, likely more hull and obviously greater shields, all while having turrets everywhere, even doubles the sustain DMG of the vanguards minus the rear remote turret.
Hey question for you. What do turrets need to be more deadly like you want them to be? Faster rotation? Guns work differently than standard ship guns? Genuinely curious as you seem to have your head on straight when it comes to balance unlike so many.
Turrets need at minimal the following. And ill cover them in detail next video. 1. Better traverse speed and range. 2. And better auto gimbal. They have auto gimbal mode now but it cuts the rate of fire drastically. 3. Higher velocity for weapons mounted on turrets. Basically they need to be over powered to counter act the fact that a player is giving up his own ship to sit in a gunner seat. Every turret has less fire power than even some starter ships.
@@BuzzCutPsycho what is your opinion on CIG adding weapons that are turret exclusive? I feel like this would make a lot of sense. My idea is that there are pulse lasers and cannons that charge, like a railgun or something. That way, turrets have the option to be either effective against fighters, and also have the options to dedicate themselves to shooting larger, more armored ships.
@@solidcdr6 This will never happen until closer to release, when they are done milking the whales...which let's face it, may never actually happen, because why stop right...
I'm neutral on the turret gun sizes. I can live with shield debuff. Maneuverability buff may possibly make me upgrade to this ship as a semi-daily driver. It doesnt have the biggest guns, but the pilot controlled firepower is enough to make this ship cool enough to fly if it can move.
I wanted this ship so much when the 4 horses of the apocalipse created that ship. It was perfect for special forces, docking and more. When CIG change it for a gun ship, that was my biggest deception. Now with that change, I am more exited than ever. Fast regeneration shield, roll pass from 30 to 116. When people crying about the Corsair, me I will have the perfect Greyhound
Now here's a thought on shields and weapon sizes. Shield armor grades and overmatch. If you have size 1 shield, it should be designed to tank S1 guns and has higher resistance to it. Any size above it automatically gets bonus damage corresponding with how much overmatch the gun gets on the shields with reverse being also true if you use too small of a gun. This would create a scenario where you can make these big ships rather cumbersome, but in order to credibly engage nimble targets, they need turrets manned and operational. Naturally you can fenagle with specialized weapons that bypass shields, but have other drawbacks, such as low ammo, projectile velocity, capacitor size or general inaccuracy if you need fighters to be able to punch back. This would also give Ares a purpose as it can reliably punch through shields of even capships, even if not necessarily being a hard counter. You could also have missiles also take out shields based on their size, giving opportunities of attack for smaller ships and making concept of missile ships sensible in a squad.
You’re pretty cool. Thanks for helping me understand with basic jpegs, when a dozen people couldn’t get the point nearly across as to why my beloved Redeemer was getting changed.
Like no one ever told me that the only other ships with the same shielding are infinitely larger than that. Funnily enough regarding the topic of dropseats, the beds below are far more secure lmao
Looks like Redeemers are now intended to clear the field of Corsairs, Constellations and maybe A2's being somewhat more nimble than those and hopefully able to firmly stay within their killbox. That's heavy fighter territory but having the turrets means they can probably fend off smaller craft more easily than said Vanguard. It's a nice addition to the Hurricane and Scorp, with slightly larger targets in mind. Still, I'd throw 4 people into two Scorpius rather than one Redeemer I think. Let's find out how it performs.
I agree. It is almost as if it is the predator for the heavy fighter. I'm sure that pound for pound it may be more effectiveness at taking on a Hammerhead with a partner based on its design. If the nose is on all the guns can hit the target same cannot be said for the HH. But the HH is bad lol
This is the most logical and reasonable stance I've heard about the new redeemer changes. Majority of youtubers and forums are just whining and complaining. As a redeemer owner myself, I'll still CCU this to something else now regardless tho. Hopefully the Mirai Guardian will be worth the switch.
Thanks for mentioning the seat placement, it's been my most hated feature of the ship of all time. Also components being placed on the top floor where you have to get them past a ladder. Still my original game package from 2014 tho
as a compromise for the huge nerf i would like the return of the coffee maker in the kitchen area along with the beds upstairs and the drop seats with the drop hatch down stairs HOW THEY WERE ORIGINALLY. I also want the VTOL engines back with the vfx from the star marine teaser. ill also want the........oh who am i kidding. lets roll with what we got.
Spectrum: "Raa I got a crew of 10 we're veterans of the Redeemer, and we know for a FACT that this ship was 1000% destroyed by the nerfs! Its useless now bla bla bla" Thanks for being a voice of reason, this game is a mad house rn
I think balancing ships is needed in the game, and I personally think this is a fine change, however I think something as huge as weapon size shouldn't be subject to change, specially in a game where so much more can be tweaked, and given the current situation where they're basically selling people on one thing then delivering a completely different experience. Because let's face it, they're essentially changing the ship's role even if they don't change its designation.
I think showing a desire and willingness to change weapons and go against marketing is an overall good sign for the games direction. A s4 has a lot more shots than a s5.
I personally Like the Change to a more agile and less tanky Platform, think Like a supersized scorpius or Hurricane.. But by downsizing the Main weaponry they are clearly pushing it into a role where twin mounts are Not that usefull. And yes, they need to Test where Things Go from Here but i would Like to See VR Style turrets in Themen of the Fury mx or talons with quad mounts (maybe s3's or even s4's)
I think with the downsize its gonna prey upon heavies and smaller. I think anyway. I would have to test it. My major concern is always fighters anyway.
@5:54 Thanks, I now hate the way the redeemers comically large turrets look after seeing the comparison vanguard. I almost want them to scale up the redeemer by ~20-30% physically so they look better. Reminds me of big head modes in FPS games.
I think with the coming armor/penetration/component/engineering changes, they are setting up ships like the Redeemer to have better component redundancy.
If people give this a chance I think theyll find its the right place for it now, with proper crew and use its going to be a serious menace against fighters now, which can only be a good thing.
What if they nerfed the pilot guns to give back the size 5 turrets? The beauty of the redeemer is that your turret gunners felt worth it. I have always complained about multi crew ships having majority of the firepower in the pilot’s hands leading to nobody wanting to be a gunner when they could do more damage in their own ship. Multicrew ships should have bad firepower for the pilot and good firepower for gunners to make being a gunner worth it. Before the changes the redeemer could be considered following this philosophy as the pilot had 2x S4 and 2x S3 compared to a gunner with 2x s5 resulting in the gunner being a very important amount of the ship’s firepower. The old connie and corsair were the worst multicrew designs as the gunners had tiny weapons and would be better off flying hornet’s alongside the connie.
The way I look at it is they lost the S3 shields and 1 size of weapons for a 80% performance increase. Also, S3 shields are being nerfed next. I will post about that in the next video. It seems like a good trade off all around.
I've been following th concept of the Redeemer since day 1. I've always seen it as a baby HH, therefore an anti-fighter ship with agility. Unsure why people thought otherwise
Redeemer's layout is wierd (jumpseats, bed location etc.). I'm not agree with size point. It feels like dedicated military vessel, narrow corridors, lack of empty space unlike the Conny and the Corsair. Final balancing we will see when physicalized armor will be done, atmospheric flights will be done. I hope
We literally think the same, I went and compared every ship in the game to its real life military counterpart and came up with the same conclusion. The redeemer is a Mi-35 Hind
honestly think it shouldve been one or the other. id rather it be a glass cannon with size 5s than completely neutered. EDIT: just finished the video, i really like the idea of it being an attack helicopter, i think it would be good if it had a buff to its precision mode where it could fire from a good distance with decent accuracy to fill that fire support role. also cant wait for functional night vision/thermal sights, this ship would be ideal for em
I'm gonna passively agree with your assessment, perhaps when SIG, Swings back their focus on master modes they will have a chance to make Turrets play better... I would like for turrets to be buffed with a higher rate of fire plus a slightly longer distance than the fighter's rate of fire vs fighters limit the fighter weapons ranges so there is a higher price to pay engaging combat multi-crew ships. One last suggestion if you are in decouple mode and hit the boost get rid of the artificial slowdown in space. that makes no sense in space in gravity sure. As far as multi-crew ships go, that have been classified as military base ships I believe CIG should add flak cannons it's a missing element in space combat especially if CIG is set on going down this path! If the intention is to be more like the "Freelancer 2" flight model a 6-degree slower successful flight model then it would be a great addition to larger ships flak cannons are very good at an area of deniability plus truly needed point defense weapons on multi-crew ships. What say you, kind sir?
I never played the freelancer games so I cannot comment. And while I would like to see flak and expect it I feel like people want flak beyond cool factor because the turrets as they are not just do not perform. What they need now at a minimum is in my opinion the following. Greater weapon velocity on turret mounts. Unnerfed auto gimbal. Better turret traversal and speed. By all counts a turret should be over powered because a player gives up his own ship to be in one. In general I agree with everything you said but I prefer lightweight solutions to problems. Adding flak will be great. But the core issues need fixed now and those are to my knowledge simple number changes.
I stuck with my MSR. From the gate, the ship had problems. So my expectations are set low. So... yeah. No second exit... guns are weak... we now have a size 3 shield. But the Corsair is being nerfed... I feel for those people.
@@BuzzCutPsycho So all ships are being pulled back. I still believe that they should have nerfed the size of guns not the control of two weapons to the co-pilot. Its just silly to sit there as a co-pilot and press a button with out aiming or gimbles. LOL
Choose one. Either you want a realistic hardcore simulator, or a fun game, you cannot have both. An F-16 cannot compete with an f-22. Realism isn’t fair, and every ship being able to take on every other ship isn’t fun.
Yes they are. There is a reason MSFS and DCS don’t make you pre flight inspection or renew a license or maintain the aircraft systems. Some things are a time sink and are not fun to 99% of people. There is a reason shooter games don’t have you write a 5 paragraph order and ROC walks. It’s because there are clear reasonable lines that are crossed and detract from the enjoyment of the player. You can pretend that’s not true but it objectively is.
@@HyperLethalNova I disagree, I have immense fun playing MSFS. It's not objective at all, it is entirely subjective, even if you pretend that it isn't. Different people find enjoyment in different things and that is a fact.
@@Nemoticon I also have immense fun playing msfs, but because of what I said, it doesn’t make you do the tedious stuff that doesn’t contribute to the enjoyable components that pilots do in IRL life. You missed my point entirely.
From what I've heard the double gimballed turrets were TOO good and they had to nerf them, so the capability is there. Especially if turrets have built in capacitors allowing for them to be fired longer, independently of other weapons systems while weapons affixed to the fuselage are fed by a single "Weapons capacitor" or single array. Point being; turrets can track better and fire longer without necessarily affecting the other turrets OR guns on the ship until it's recharging, at which point we need to ensure the generators are capable of charging them all. But that said most ships (not all but most) with turrets will have crew who could, with a great engineer, communicate charge cycles with the turret teams to give them a boost in power when they need to recharge.
You're not wrong. I think the big issue with the turrets is velocity. A velocity buff may fix a lot more than we think. I'll be covering turrets next video.
In space, all else being equal, a turreted ship should defeat a fixed forward weapon (even gimballed) version EVERY time. Fixed forward weapons are, at best, only optimal for engagements in heavy atmo where the movement of the turret(s) will adversely affect flight characteristics of the craft either balance/center of force, or increased drag/loss of aerodynamics. This mortifies the light fighter types, but is really just common sense.
@@BuzzCutPsycho The light fighter mafia is a creature of CIGs own creation. I think those ships are great for people who enjoy the challenge of dueling - e.g. going 1v1 in equally matched (if not identical) craft OR the people who enjoy the coordinated team play that mimics how fighters and close attack craft are actually employed.
So PTU stats are on Erkul for 24.2. It’s even worse for the Deemer. They also reduced her HP from 101k to just 66k! Wtf? Also the 6 S2 shields are not going to give her 36k like we thought. More like 28k since they reduce the output of shielding almost across the board. What 3-5 players are going to pile into a ship with just 66k HP and 28k shields??? No one. It’s a flying coffin for 5 that will be popped in about 10 seconds by fighters. They’ve made the ship useless in its own role. They just ripped off everyone who paid a whopping $330 for this ship. It’s ok though, the Andromeda, a cheaper multi-role Gunship of the same size class got to keep her 180k HP. Eff you CIG. Though they wanted to encourage engineering and ship repair? You need to extend the life of multi crew ships if you want them alive long enough to repair and change fuses in combat. The Deemer will be space dust before anyone could get out of a seat to change a fuse.
I still remember the redeemer on release when it was giving the light fighters a run for its money. It set a bad precedent for multicrew gameplay being competitive with single players then and even the balancing that came after was not enough. That thing was always terribly overgunned and overshielded. Cant be that 5 people have the same firepower as 2 F7A, thats bad for sales and bad for the self respect of the fighter pilots.
At the first look at some points the re-balancing of some ships look bad, but CIG tries to do something they themselves are not yet sure about. If they where, they could do more faster or even do it almost all in one go and ask the community what the issues are and how it feels. They always say we hear you, but they proof us time and time again that they are not really listening. And their vision is also not complete, we see it, we feel it, we don't understand and we get frustrated. The worst is CIG cannot explain it to us because the complete picture is not there yet. Now all these small changes, rebalance, tuning over time combined with MM in its current state which is not finished. Leads in the meantime to a worst flight and fight experience. Yes, they tell us that Chris wants a WW2 dogfighting in Space, but that sounds just like the old Wing Commander where you just could fly on the six of enemy fighters. SC is so much more then Wing Commander with a lot more ships and a balancing act with rock, paper, scissors is a big nightmare. Even with having a good basic flight model which they still do not have this nightmare gets even worse. The worst thing most people I speak to, tell me that they bought a ship that in lore would be a certain thing. And CIG changes sometimes seem to be contra to that what was promised in Lore. For example the Aegis Vanguard was a long distance heavy fighter that is as tough as nails and has a lot of redundancies and no matter what happens that no matter what happens and how much damage it will receive it will bring the crew home. Now the redundancies are gone, It is not sure if we can buy more modules and put it into the Vanguard it has a lot of extra component slots which are not filled at the moment. The problem is CIG doesn't know it or they just don't tell us. About the Redeemer just for an example, the Redeemer would have some kind of phased shields which make it very hard to kill. So we see a rebalance that they reduced the Shield to Size 2 everyone thinks that it is a big nerf and it might be so. But CIG again doesn't say that these new Size 2 might be those Special Phased shields because they don't know it yet or they just don't mention it because they might think people know about it. Let be honest if you have overlapping and phased shields with a Size 2 the regen would be much higher so if they do overlap it would be one tough nut to crack even more so than standard Size 3 shield. The problem we have is clear and precise communication. Even if you don't know what you are doing or try to do or even if it is part of a road with a destination. This is something that CIG really needs to learn how to communicate. At the moment Communication is all over the place you need to search for it and all the little pieces you need to gather and put together yourself. And even then is it almost impossible to say if something is already of the table or not. They often say communication is an Art and this is not an understatement. Anyway it is all in the Eye of the Beholder. And we don't know or see anything thru the fog of development as it is now. The only thing we can do is relax sit back and hope CIG somehow gets it done.
You are spot on with CIG communication needing work. It is pretty rough, and the Vanguard is a good example of that. I do not see the value in long range currently and I hope it gets a re-visit and balanced, buffed, accordingly.
Except for the titan, and still the Connie, I’ve been so happy with the majority of ship changes. Sometimes people just want to chase the meta, but giving each ship a personality good and bad qualities make the game fun and diverse
They should have left the turrets alone, dropped 1 s3 shield and left it with its original maneuvering characteristics. I don't see it as a Hind , but closer to a Spectre gunship. It should be matched to Connies and Corsairs - if not be a little better as a dedicated heavy Gunship.
Naaaaaaah. Always wanted it to not be a fat boat, I'll take the downsized turrets and shields to move like a Vanguard. Now I can actually be a menace to fighters.
The Redeemer was over gunned and over shielded. It was better to have two Redeemers than a crewed Hammerhead and that's just weird. Of course, they could have up gunned the Hammerhead.
You can fly the vanguard with 1or better two players effectively! You would need more players on the redeemer to be as effective!! That’s the issue you can’t compare them unfortunately! I would rather have those players fly two vanguards than one redeemer…
People need to buckle up right now because if they are starting to tinker with the ships as they are doing so it means one thing and one thing only. Resources are flowing from SQ42 into SC where now game balance is the biggest question for the game going forward. Every ship is going to get looked at, every economy route and even weapons & armor. We're going to see everything moving around until everything hits proper equilibrium. That is honestly a good thing at the end of it all. The core idea is to dislodge the META and make ships viable for content. I wouldn't be surprised if lets say 6 months to a year we're going to see reverts when Damage 2.0 along with Weapon Changes comes out as well. Things are going to get interesting and I'm all for it. Also edit: The Redeemer is your Black hawk helicopter. I dont see black hawks carrying firepower to go toe to toe with Armor. That's why you have a Apachie escorting them. I Do agree on one thing CIG needs to give us a AC-130 equivalent (Crusader ship designed a more sleeker version of the C Series without bombs or cargo) but the Redeemer is not it, its a insertion craft for Special Operations.
People are going to be very upset and you are right. A lot more balance and changes are coming and they're gonna make people unhappy. The S3 shields are all being changed as are S2s, and connie corsair. Its gonna be a wild ride.
@@BuzzCutPsycho When I signed up, I signed up knowing full well even my pledge ship will be subject to change. It even said it right as I pledged that CIG has final say on balance for the ship. The core issue that no one is looking at is the META and how lopsided its made ships. You have people complaining about their X ship being underpowered because Y ship is OP. Now that CIG is taking time to start bringing balance to the game, the people who bought the Y ship because some TTV/UA-cam Influencer said this ship was meta [ we know exactly that ONE person is with their stupid Tier lists] is getting bent out of shape. Its that meme. "You bought X ship because its meta I bought the ship because its cool We are not the same"
How does its new mobility compare with the Corsair and Connie? Also if it was able to carry cargo like the Connie and Corsair then I’m sure they would be identical in size it’s only slightly smaller
I think it was balanced if you compare it to solo Corsairs or Connies because if you put all the players in the Redeemer in the pilotseat of one of those you have more shields and weapons. So the unnerfed Redeemer makes sense to me from that point of view. The Redeemer nerf makes only sense to me in a world where all the medium ships with a lot of pilot dps get nerfed.
I kind of agree with you on this and yes the issue is that turrets suck. In which case until they don't suck, let pilots fire the turret guns locked forward at least. The fact you can't I get why, and I get that CIG basically are hostile to solo players. This all stems back to CIG breaking their word on the option of PvE only play many years ago now. Balance matters so much more when you are a PvP MMO vs PvE. The disparity between AI enemies vs PvP is so large that you have to prioritise balance to PvP to such a degree that actual fun suffers. Not saying Redeemer should not have been adjusted but the fact it needed so much adjusting since the day it first appeared is all because the obsession with PvP over everything else.
@BuzzCutPsycho I made the mistake if using a referral LTI token to upgrade all the way to a Redeemer. Because of that I can never melt my Redeemer and just get say a Vanguard. I can only upgrade to a bigger more expensive ship which basically would be something where playing solo was even more a problem.
Eh... Completely overlooked in the video - the role of each of the ships in it. The Redeemer is compared to the Corsair and the Connie Andromeda because it's a gunboat. The other three ships are not gunboats. They have different roles entirely. Three of the ships are decent cargo haulers, while the Redeemer is a dedicated combat vessel. Finally, the two non-Redeemer ships that aren't used as cargo haulers - the Vanguard and the Hammerhead - are both notorious for not being very effective in their respective roles. In short, there's a strong argument (not found in this video) that the Vanguard and Hammerhead need to be buffed. However, there's also word that CIG is conducting experiments with the shield sizes right now on Evo. This is VERY much needed, imo, as the jump from S2 to S3 is far too big (it shouldn't require over 16 S2 shields to reach the total hp of a single S3 shield). This will affect what the shield changes mean to the Redeemer.
This is the first round of changes for the redeemer, or most ships. They were never touched and given a baseline. The Redeemer had the same performance as an 890j. I don't get too caught up in the terminology.
@@BuzzCutPsycho 890J? The 890J is a civilian pleasure yacht with S4 shields that have over 450K hp. I'm not sure why you're comparing it to that ship. And yes, terminology matters. "Freighter" is terminology. "Heavy fighter" is terminology. One term tells me that the ship is good at hauling stuff, but probably not good at fighting. The other term tells me that the ship is good at fighting, but probably can't move any freight. Words have meaning, which is why the fact that a Redeemer is a "gunship" is important. It means that the ship is capable of closing with and blasting the enemy, while surviving reasonable amounts of return fire. Otherwise the ship can't fulfill its role. The gunships currently in the game are the Redeemer, Corsair, and Connie Andromeda. It should compare with the other two. However, while the other two have multi-role capability - being decent freight haulers of just under 100 SCU - the Redeemer is limited to its role as a gunship, with a measly two SCU in cargo space. Ergo, pound for pound it should outperform the other two ships in combat. Otherwise, why would you get a Redeemer when you can get equal or better combat performance plus additional capabilities from the Connie or Corsair?
Yeeeaaaa. Because multi-crew ships were in such a good place compared to single seat fighters that they needed a nerf. ROFLMAO Edit: 1:15 All these ships have big components and will get blapped by a good pilot in a Buck (and now the Redeemer will get blapped even faster!).
@@BuzzCutPsycho I will believe it when I see it. Despite how it may sound, I hope they do something. I am of the thought that a multicrew combat ship should beat a single seat fighter in almost all situations where skill levels are equal but so far CIG has not seemed to agree with that. At this point Multi-crews are a dumpster fire for PvP.
@@BuzzCutPsycho Wasn't the original design in the great Starship contest for it to be a dropship? I've always thought of the Redeemer as a cross between an Apache and a Blackhawk, not a heavy fighter or something big. More designed for taking a small team into a hostile area, dropping them off near by, giving some air cover then picking them up to evac.
The price should be reduced too Saving grace for Redeemer's future is blades being a thing and NPC crews not. So even if it sucks, it will suck less than trying to maneuver Constellations with pilot guns
Problem for me is these ships are super strong in their advertisement so they sell a lot of them and get nerfed a lot after. What do you think about the Corsair nerf?
Speaking of the Corsair, I was looking at this ship closely after hearing about the nerf and the bottom front guns do appear to be mounted to what looks to be a rotating large gimbal even though currently it's fixed so maybe this always was the intention for this ship that the gun can swivel left to right and up and down like a turret. If so then this might not be so bad for the copilot.
So basically the Redeemer is smaller and should be inferior in terms of firepower and shielding, even though it’s a military combat ship which the Corsair and Connie is not? Not considering the amount of people needed to get those dps numbers? I don’t agree with you, I think the redeemer was balanced except maybe it had one size 3 shield too much. As it is in 3.24.2 it’s going straight from A tier to s tier and from a community favorite to a hangar queen that alienates the already divided community even more.
The redeemer had no buisness being equal to an A2 or Hammerhead, nor was it ever intended to be such. Besides, with the S3 shield nerfs and S2 shield buffs coming this will turn the ship into a monster provided turrets get better. Just IMO.
@@BuzzCutPsycho yes, it all depends on the balancing. Cig already started to nerf the Corsair, so the Connie will be next. That puts the redeemer in a better place again. I heared the Shield system gets a balance pass as well. I just think it’s a bad move by CIG to balance ships „here and there“ and not all of them at the same time considering the level of resentment already in the community.
Im very looking forward to the changes the deemer always felt it flies too heavy for its PHYSICAL size I don't care about the components and shit, the ship looks smol it should fly smol Also cig please make turrets great again
@@BuzzCutPsycho no matter what change, if you love a ship you'll just fly the ship and learn its strengths and flaws... I adapted to the brick turn rates in 3.23 I don't see why I can't adapt again🤔
didn't really cared about the shields but i was really against the weapon nerf. I don't know why but the redeemer was way bigger than a vanguard in my mind. Your visual demonstration was really good and made me change my mind even if i liked the idea of big guns on this gunship. Do you have a video explaining in more depth why turrets sucks so bad and what would help them ?
I do not have one on turrets since I was waiting for the newest hud and patch to dive into them. And also why I never made a guide on them. I may roll turrets into my next video about the corsair and Connie changes. Turrets remain the core issue with those changes too.
Also, the Drake Corsair is getting a nerf. The Drake Corsair is losing 2 size 5 weapons and will be nerf to have 4 size 4 weapons instead of 4 size 5 weapons and 2 size 4 weapons. The Drake Corsair is an exploration vessel, not a military combat spaceship. People are getting angry at the massive nerf of the Drake Corsair because it cost $250.
Comparing ship sizes then leaves out that the Redeemer has two decks and no cargo and the constellation and corsair have single decks with cargo… if they’d leaned into the anti fighter role a bit more and replaced the turrets with quad size 3s… leave out that the internal layout for the redeemer is stupid. Whatever
@@BuzzCutPsycho Can't wait until the Hindenburg airship gets sold in star citizen, the sheer size of the thing will give it millions of hitpoints, and turrets that are quad size 7 Aeres inferno gatlings for sure! Everyone knows that bigger size makes things tougher and more powerful. M1A2 Abrams stands zero chance in a slugging match with the Hindenburg!
Balanced? It’s a military gunship, now it’s lame at combat to “balance” it against mostly civilian ships. They’ve completely ruined it, I won’t be pledging a dime after they’ve ruined it, the Corsair and the 400i.
I never realized just how small the Redeemer is, those silhouettes really helped show the logic behind the changes. unrelated: do you find your 'top attack' method with missiles is still the best method to use them, do you find the firebird and connie's off axis launch help with that? I'm also curious how you think the gladiator sits with its buffs, it feels squarely in the heavy fighter segment to me now.
In the first size comparison to the Corsair and the Andromeda, one is a war ship, and the others aren't. Compare apples to apples. If you take out the wings, fairings, and cargo spaces, not much size difference. Also is a $1,000,000 Ferrari faster than Ford pickup. Purpose built for different things. Comparing war ships to exploration and cargo ships???
It isn't a Ferrari. It isn't a pickup. It is a video game asset designed to be used by players. And since it is a game, games have rules, and games must be balanced. It doesn't matter what the classification is. It has the most firepower of any ship in its size and was all controlled by a single pilot. That is coming to an end. The marketing terminology does not trump balance, gameplay, and design. Did you see the Corsair nerfs? The Connie is getting the same treatment. I will analyze that soon. Thanks for the comment, btw
@@BuzzCutPsycho Should they nurf the Aries as well. It is tiny and has a size 7 weapon. Pound for pound the most powerful if you are just talking gun power. No, there is a tradeoff, big guns bad maneuverability or some other disadvantage. I did not buy a vanguard. I don't want a vanguard, .... well, yes I do, but not the point..... I hope they don't nurf it to be like a vanguard... no comparison as one is a 2 person ship and the other is a 4 person ship and cost a lot more and useless without a crew. I understand game balance but this is not that kind of game where you have direct game balance like an RTS. I don't expect to fight aurora against a Sabre and win (pay to win or work hard and earn in game). Guess it could happen but not likely, If there is a problem with a ship, make it more expensive. I like the game but it that kind of game, there is no play balance and if a corsair (explorer/ cargo ship) is supposed to be even remotely balanced with a gun ship... well I guess no one should buy gun ships as cargo ships are more useful. Sorry just ranting. The first ship I bought was a Drake Harold.. cool looking ship, loved the asymmetrical look. Got it when it just came out in concept. They completely changed it. I guess I am getting tired of buying ships and having to trade in ships I buy for something else because someone complains. I got the Redeemer when it was in concept from the competition. Just disappointed.
I am so glad you give CIG constructive criticism and think positive. I’m tired of all the negativity. Game doesn’t have all the mechanics in, and those will change the game all over again.
"don't be mad, be mad"
Lol did I say that? I don't script and I was tired.
@@BuzzCutPsycho nope just my out of context mental exhaust. Great breakdown!
Balanced against what? It’s the only dedicated large gunship.
According to cig the corsair and Connie are considered gunship archetypes
@@BuzzCutPsycho yeah, one is exploration and the other one is multi-role with different variants, and each can carry ursa or average amount of cargo...
This ship will go through lots of changes. People in the game should pick a ship or two that they really like and just use those until all the upcoming mechanics are in the PU. Armor is going to change everything…
And that's kind of the problem.
@BuzzCutPsycho lmao. This (CIG not the video) is so lazy it's painful to watch. I knew, the moment they mentioned these generic archetypes, they were going to fk ships up.
Step 1: classify the Connie, Corsair, and Redeemer all as "gunships".
Step 2: realize one of these gunships is obviously smaller than the others.
Step 3: gimp the smaller gunship to fall in line behind its big brothers.
Cross shopping a Redeemer and a Connie/Corsair is like cross shopping a Ford F150 and a Toyota Camry. The Camry can carry your family of 4 around town. The F150 can carry your family of 4 around town... but it can also pull a trailer, haul a pallet of materials in the bed, go off road, etc etc. The Redeemer is solely a fist fighting combat ship, the cargo, exploration, VIP passenger carrying missile boat is not. If they wanted to change anything, they need to defang the civilian cargo ship to have less pilot firepower than the combined firepower of the military heavy gunship's two manned turrets.
I don't own a Redeemer nor a Corsair so I don't feel the "bait-and-switch" anger some are feeling right about now. Balancing always sucks when your favorite character/power/weapon/ship is nerfed in gaming. What is different about Star Citizen is that these aren't token amounts people are spending - it's $200 - $750 dollars or more. Perhaps CIG should adopt a policy of "you get your actual money back without question (not just the ability to melt) if we change your $ pledge ship within x months of introduction." Certainly would add pressure on CIG to get it right from the beginning.
I won't argue this one. I own almost every ship in the game and don't personally feel entitled to anything like that. But I don't expect anyone to feel that way.
I just want a good and balanced game.
Bait and switch is a huge term to throw around and most have no justification for using it. If you want bait and switch, here's an example of a real bait and switch. The Retaliator concept in its original form. Later modules added. The bait and switch part is the fact they devalued the original concept that people paid for and got LTI. This was removed in the rework of the Retaliator with modules, and later a complete removal of all modules entirely.
THAT, is bait and switch. And why I melted mine, because I got burned from it in terms of monetary value. Nothing of what they did to the Redeemer now qualifies for bait and switch it was not devalued, nor was its design changed and made more expensive to get the same items. A better phrase would be "Balancing Pass." What happen with the Retaliator was a monetization change that cost people money from the original concept.
What bothers me about the Corsair nerf is the utter illogic of it. By all means take weapons from the pilot. But rather than split them between the pilot and the nose gunner give all four of the S5s to the gunner in a chin turret. That actually makes way more sense from a design and function perspective.
@@ThomasD66 This is just people not paying attention to the fine print. No one paid attention to the fact that CIG reserves the right to make any and all necessary adjustments to the concepts before and after. Meaning any ship is subject to change...that's even including the Retaliator when it first introduced. I never got one because I always felt that they wouldnt be able to get the modules working properly and lo I was right on that front but the people who bought it got mad about it...even though it said on the damn thing when you pledge that CIG reserves the right.
Bait and switch nah....people unable to read and comprehend...yes.
@@ThomasD66 Yes giving the co-pilot control of fixed nose guns and also a remote turret on the back of the ship makes absolutely no sense. Polaris is getting its turrets up-gunned so it is quite clear what CIG is doing. They are forcing people to multi crew ships. But then you look at the Andromeda and it received a new gun placement for the lower pilot weapons allowing them to be up-gunned to s5. Is it going to now be made less maneuverable than the corsair? At this point I want to sell my account and buy just a starter package and no extra money spent. Bought Inferno, it got basically nerfed to useless. Bought Corsair, it is getting nerfed.
I've been saying this on spectrum. If the Redeemer handles like a Cutlass Black or Vanguard Warden the nerfs are fine. I am beyond relieved to hear that it will be close to that.
Also, fixing the location of the jumpseats / sleeping quarters would make a lot more sense, but I don't think they'll spend the time sadly enough. Maybe in the future we'll get lucky!
I want those seats changes more than anything
The turret placement has always been my biggest gripe, though I see the jump-seat issue as well. The Redeemer is a gunship/dropship. Ground support is supposed to be one of it's primary functions and neither turret is well placed for that. The turrets should be side-mounted, maybe with a bias toward a lower arc. Teams True and Troyka had promising initial concepts in that respect. It's a shame that no-one was able to combine all the good design ideas from TNGS into an actual well-designed ship.
A sign of sell OP Ship, cash in, then nerf it to make room for next OP ship.
Sell next OP Ship. Repeat.
I hope its good !
@@BuzzCutPsycho If it's the Mirai Guardian I'm going to heavily cream my trousers.
Lookout, new gunship for sale during Citizencon.
Or just don't buy the ship based on its current performance op or otherwise and Instead look at the role which it will eventually be balanced towards.
@@gyratingwolpertiger6851 Do you still really believe that? After all the shady practices CIG has been doing? Don't talk about ship roles, they only care about the money a new ship can bring as many ships are overlapping the so called roles right now. Heck, they don't even know how the frigging flight model is going to be as they don't have a clear vision for it.
Don't be naive, the "balance" is not for the game's sake, it's for the money.
wow I did not realize how close the vanguard and redeemer are in size. It makes sense to trade shields for better handling, but compared to a corsair it still sounds under gunned for a “gun ship”. We will see how it works out i guess :D. At the moment everything is so bugged that I don't even bother to test the changes they make.
I dont test much anymore either tbh. Just stuff like this.
Put the jump seats and a gun rack downstairs, put the beds and amenities upstairs, though I would make the kitchen area a lot smaller. And make what was the hab module, a jump support module to swap out. Also with s2 shields, there may end up being more room to move things around a bit. Especially if they space out the shields, rather then cluster them in one spot.
Agreed. I hate the seats being upstairs more than you can imagine.
The living quarters won't fit upstairs. The hull on the upper level is more narrow than the hull on the lower level, which means that you can't squeeze the beds in.
@@BuzzCutPsycho You're not the only one, it's the reason I never pledged one. I love the ship otherwise and I'd have one if the seats were downstairs.
Not entirely sure on this one. Always had a soft spot for redeemer because it made light fighter cretins seethe with rage.
"A HIND SHOULDN'T BEAT AN F-22! REEE!"
But you're right. The thing is pretty small, even if I do find it questionable that anyone will sit on those turrets anymore. It was ultimately combination of survivability, firepower and ability to make Avengerone seethe with rage when he couldn't tricord a fully crewed Redeemer to death solo that made it one of the only ships worth Multi-crew.
Problem is, it punched up and down because it was a pocket hammerhead.
If while fully crewed, it can hard-counter light fighters, I will consider the rebalancing success. If it fails at that, the ship itself is just another multi-crew ship without multi-crew.
Hey liquid snake shot down vipers with a hind in MGS!!!
I think a conversation about the Redeemer between you and Astropub would be hilarious.
I doubt they would talk with me
@@BuzzCutPsycho Extend the olive branch!
This is what CiG marketing department should have said....instead they allowed the obvious to come through, which is that they are nerfing any possible old ships that would outcompete the new gunship or gunships they plan to sell at IAE or Citizencon. Wish you would have mentioned this in the video. The problem with this is that they will just constantly manipulate the meta and power of ships to continue to sell new ships until the last possible minute, which we all know will be another 10 years minimum, so no one should get comfortable with the way anything is balanced at any given time. When the new "literally anything" comes out (we all saw how the ATLS went), all previous competitors will "suffer" and be brought into line below the new "shiny" cash grab...This is the reason multi-crew will never be brought into line, despite it being a very simple fix to at least make it viable. They want solo pilots to keep buying and flying big expensive ships. If 3-8 people can share one ship, sales suffer. Period... I've said it before and I'll say it again, CiG is simply and truly a large marketing company with a small game development team. Not the other way around....sooner folks realize this, sooner they can save themselves thousands and a whole lot of frustration arguing about balance changes....
No doubt. But I do not think too much nefarious play is behind this decision and is just flat out balance adjustments. Even shields are being changed now.
Amen and the video did'nt even mention this like its not a factor.
And CIG has never really been at all comfortable with the Redeemer, being a player design from the start.
Idk if that's even true. Looking at the data mined ships the next competitor will come with way less pilot fire power that a Connie or Corsair but have better turrets.
@@BuzzCutPsycho Based on CIG's history I would disagree but I enjoyed the video.
Ships shouldn't be balanced by size, they should be balanced by role. That's what CIG used to say and it made a lot of sense.
The Redeemer has the CREW requirements and PRICE tag of a large ship. It was intended as step between the basic multicrew generalists and the dedicated military ships such as the Perseus. Call it a "Starship Captain's" first command.
As initially launched the ship was amazing. Sure it was a little sluggish, but not overtly so. The turrets worked perfectly until the "fighter lobby" complained about not being able to solo it. Then they were nerfed in terms of rotation. That's why they are bad. Then they complained further, and the mobility was nerfed. And now both, protection and firepower have been nerfed.
Now, it is no longer a Gunship. It's durability doesn't warrant packing 5 people inside it, and it can't do the only job it is supposed to do: fighting. It is, in fact, worse than a hurricane. And worse that the generalist multicrew ships that were supposed to be one step below it. And those cost about 1/3rd less!!!! Even worse, the Redeemer gives everything in order to perform its only mission. So while you can get a lot of gameplay from a Connie (even Solo), you can only play a Redeemer with a crew because it's Solo firepower is worse than that of a medium fighter.
If there wasn't a gap between the Mid-sized ships and the dedicated combatants it would be less of an insult. But there is actually NOTHING in the game to fill that niche now that the Redeemer has been demoted.
Are you supposed to go from a Connie to a Hammerhead/M2/Perseus directly with nothing in between? It may be a bit of a grind in-game. And I mean several Tens of millions.
I'd also like to see what CIG plans to release to fill that gap... because I am pretty sure it'll be pretty much what the Redeemer was at launch. Maybe a little big bigger.
I really suggest you take a real look at a couple of the posts made in September on the Redeemer's forum. The problem with balancing by size is quite well explained there.
The size has to fit the role, imo. But size is just identifiable and meets player expectations.
@@BuzzCutPsycho Size is, at best, a secondary factor. It shouldn't by far be the most important one. As CIG themselves stated at the time of the Redeemer's launch, the ship was built around the components it needs in order to fulfill its mission.
It'd be like saying you need to bring the Polaris down to the armament of the 890 because they are similar in size. Or the Hammerhead to the armament of a Gemini. They have different roles and different niches. The dedicated combatants have high price tags, high crew requirements, and high mission requirements.
The Redeemer was not a heavy fighter, and it should not be anywhere near a heavy fighter.
Again, drop by the Redeemer's forum and look at the Balancing Size over role post. You'll find John Crewe's clips about the Redeemer at launch and a breakdown of what the ship is supposed to be.
You are the only rational person in the comments! Cheers!
@@CptFugu The problem is as long as A1 knows some low level dev in CIG we're going to have issues with the fighter lobby.
I swear that group is the biggest bunch of crybabies.
I do overall agree but we're also missing parts and in the grand scheme of things just because its nerf'd now does not mean it wont get re-balanced again and get buffed.
At this point in the development cycle CIG needs to start putting together a dedicated balance team that is isolated from TTV/UA-camr input. Ignore stat and played numbers per ship and just evaluate each ship based on the role its supposed to complete.
Always appreciate your insight, my guy. Curious on your thoughts about the Corsair changes.
Coming soon! I'm gonna put together a more detailed video about that one. But to answer I support it on the condition the ship guns become turrets. And turrets are changed. In general I think the corsair and Connie the way they were designed were a major barrier to preventing multi crew since the pilot had all the power.
Too much fire power and durability for one player.
Not enough survivability for a crew. Didnt make sense.
you are the voice of reason the star citizen community needs lol
I try lol
I’m in agreement with the shields. But the Redeemer was a Gunship. The proper way to use the Redeemer was to fly parallel to large ships and the size 5 advantage was the range. Thats why S5 is/was supposed to be the first “capital class” gun size.
So yes I agree almost completely with you on the smaller faster ship being a demon against fighters. But that wasn’t the purpose of the Redeemer. To match that to a current use aircraft, also called a “gunship” is the AC-130 Spooky. Large, slow, but with deadly purpose. Which was oversized guns that outraged its targets.
The problems we have with that now is the “greedy pilot” syndrome that we currently have. A proper Redeemer pilot flys parallel and 2-4 turrets turn on that target. 2 from out of range. When we have done this it makes slaying large ships very easy. Unfortunately “team play” is a far dream for the last 2 generations….. so you don’t see it.
@@charliemcawesome5012 did you type out that whole response without watching the video in it's entirety? your first mistake is comparing a fictional space combat ship to real world modern day air plane. you do realize that an ac-130 specializes in CAS right? it's not like you have ac-130's targeting large naval vessels IRL or anything like using a redeemer to take out large capital class ships
I've been telling people complaining about the shield balance post in The Spectrum recently that we don't know the final numbers for multiple variables still so we have no idea if a ship is actually nerfed or not. I feel vindicated seeing those numbers. And we still don't know about how armor, resource network/engineering, component modifiers, etc are going to change ship balances.
I heard the new changes are massive and s3 got cut down big
If 2 2xs4 turrets actually did anything to scare fighters and they increase the speed by a considerable margin, I would consider it balanced. As it is the only reason to have 3 people in one ship was for the massive dps of 4xs5 and the tanky shields. Right now considering the rumored changes to the Corsair, I feel like they are nerfing all the high dps ships so that the Polaris and whatever other new ships they release this November look better in comparison so people will spend money. I say this as my orgs -Banu MM- Polaris owner. So while this might make it balanced it also makes it completely redundant and a waste of 2 potential pilots.
Basically CIG needs to fix turrets because it's been years and it's starting to get ridiculous. So yea.
TL;DR I agree with you.
A lot of people are missing, you're not missing it, but are missing that TURRETS ARE THE MAIN ISSUE AND THEY SUCK. The fact they suck is why these bigger ships also suck. No changes are going to address that.
I enjoyed the deemer while she lasted. I agree it never made sense to have a ship that small with near the same firepower and shields as a hammer head. That said, still bummed it got nerfed so bad but it makes 100% sense. I melted it for a reclaimer.
I think you may enjoy it more if you give it a chance. That maneuverability is nice.
@BuzzCutPsycho darn near the warden.
Makes the warden look bad now to be honest.
80-70% increase in yaw and pitch it's actually pretty good, and 2 dual s4 turrets may be better for light/medium fighter kill, I mean the battle cat was scary with its turrets, now an agile ship that can chase you with 4 s4 shooting at you it's scary
And no my wife told me that the bigger ones hurt 😢
So long as it was your bigger one.
I really wish size 4’s were better Vs smaller fighters. Unfortunately the meta is for fighters to kite multi-crew ships at ranges where they can hit the ship but the ship can barely hit them. Reducing the Deemers effective range and DPS from S5 to S4 is going to make fighting fighter even worse for her 😔.
@@jimc7022 they could easily fix that by reducing fighters range to 600m and turrets range to 1500m, now fighters need to be in the deadly range in order to hit big ships
And if the deemer can chase fighters, like I said, it's a fast maneuverable monster, even with the current ranges it would be able to deal some serious damage
I'm not complaining about these changes, but the Redeemer was the quintessential gunship to me, with a role akin to that of the AC 130H Spectre, laying waste to a whole city block of ground targets, or perforate the hull of bigger ships like the Hammerhead to open access for squadrons.
It seems to lose a lot of this capability now and I'm not sure what role it's supposed to fill now.
Hunting heavies and below
@@BuzzCutPsycho please define "heavies" in this regard.
@@animusnocturnus7131heavy fighters (scorpius, vanguard, hurricane, f8c, etc)
@@luistigerfox That would honestly be a bit disappointing since we've not only got light, medium and other heavy fighters for that particular job, but also the Hammerhead, meaning that the Redeemer would have been changed from being a Gunship, into being redundant.
Yet another great video. Redeemer always looked like a super vanguard to me. I agree the jump seats should be first floor and beds in second floor.. This ship should be able to equal 3 vanguards if not 4 in firepower depending on how many gunners.
One thing is for sure I think the Vanguard needs a bit of love too
@@BuzzCutPsycho desperately, there is no gun options for it at 1800m/s velocity.
"Balanced" to boost sales on the next ship that then gets "balanced" itself. I respect the marketing team. They're sticking with that same formula to goad all the suckers
based marketing
It is that pre sales nerf time of the year :) Infinite monkeys theory, eventually marketing accidentally got something right, even if it might be by accident.
I'm excited to see its performance, half the missile payload of the harbinger, likely more hull and obviously greater shields, all while having turrets everywhere, even doubles the sustain DMG of the vanguards minus the rear remote turret.
The ship maneuverability alone is a huge buff for the ship, regardless of other changes imo. 80% increase is huge.
100% agree 👏👏👏
Me and my friend JUST had this conversation 😅
And we both really curious about the "new" more fitting redeemer.
I bet you will both be happy. It's gonna be snappy compared to the old one.
The Redeemer reminds me of what the P-38 Lightning role in WW2 was supposed to be.
Did the p38 have a turret i dont remember
@@BuzzCutPsycho Nope, it had twin engines though and a shitload of firepower
The P-38 was the primary inspiration for the Vanguard.
Hey question for you. What do turrets need to be more deadly like you want them to be? Faster rotation? Guns work differently than standard ship guns?
Genuinely curious as you seem to have your head on straight when it comes to balance unlike so many.
Turrets need at minimal the following. And ill cover them in detail next video.
1. Better traverse speed and range.
2. And better auto gimbal. They have auto gimbal mode now but it cuts the rate of fire drastically.
3. Higher velocity for weapons mounted on turrets.
Basically they need to be over powered to counter act the fact that a player is giving up his own ship to sit in a gunner seat. Every turret has less fire power than even some starter ships.
@@BuzzCutPsycho what is your opinion on CIG adding weapons that are turret exclusive? I feel like this would make a lot of sense. My idea is that there are pulse lasers and cannons that charge, like a railgun or something. That way, turrets have the option to be either effective against fighters, and also have the options to dedicate themselves to shooting larger, more armored ships.
@@solidcdr6 This will never happen until closer to release, when they are done milking the whales...which let's face it, may never actually happen, because why stop right...
@@solidcdr6 I could see that. I wouldn't take away the ability to put normal weapons on turret mounts but maybe have special turret only weapons.
@@jebidyah what does turret exclusive weapons have to do with money? If anything it would sell more ships that require turrets
Yogi, the guy responsible for the flight model didnt even know that afterburner changes were coming to 3.24.2. Im really starting to lose hope.
Busy guy I'm sure
I'm neutral on the turret gun sizes. I can live with shield debuff. Maneuverability buff may possibly make me upgrade to this ship as a semi-daily driver. It doesnt have the biggest guns, but the pilot controlled firepower is enough to make this ship cool enough to fly if it can move.
Its pretty good in eptu
I wanted this ship so much when the 4 horses of the apocalipse created that ship. It was perfect for special forces, docking and more. When CIG change it for a gun ship, that was my biggest deception. Now with that change, I am more exited than ever. Fast regeneration shield, roll pass from 30 to 116. When people crying about the Corsair, me I will have the perfect Greyhound
I heard they changed it a lot from the original 4 horseman concept. Like a lot.
@@BuzzCutPsycho it was smaller with a docking hatch, jump seat on the first floor. Big issue was the stairs.
@@BuzzCutPsycho ua-cam.com/video/ZffXKdokPwA/v-deo.html
Now here's a thought on shields and weapon sizes.
Shield armor grades and overmatch. If you have size 1 shield, it should be designed to tank S1 guns and has higher resistance to it. Any size above it automatically gets bonus damage corresponding with how much overmatch the gun gets on the shields with reverse being also true if you use too small of a gun.
This would create a scenario where you can make these big ships rather cumbersome, but in order to credibly engage nimble targets, they need turrets manned and operational.
Naturally you can fenagle with specialized weapons that bypass shields, but have other drawbacks, such as low ammo, projectile velocity, capacitor size or general inaccuracy if you need fighters to be able to punch back.
This would also give Ares a purpose as it can reliably punch through shields of even capships, even if not necessarily being a hard counter.
You could also have missiles also take out shields based on their size, giving opportunities of attack for smaller ships and making concept of missile ships sensible in a squad.
So have you seen the new armor on eptu or the basics of it? Its a bit like what you're saying
You’re pretty cool. Thanks for helping me understand with basic jpegs, when a dozen people couldn’t get the point nearly across as to why my beloved Redeemer was getting changed.
I appreciate that! People never look deep enough at things. They get worked up and don't think much behind that.
Like no one ever told me that the only other ships with the same shielding are infinitely larger than that. Funnily enough regarding the topic of dropseats, the beds below are far more secure lmao
Looks like Redeemers are now intended to clear the field of Corsairs, Constellations and maybe A2's being somewhat more nimble than those and hopefully able to firmly stay within their killbox. That's heavy fighter territory but having the turrets means they can probably fend off smaller craft more easily than said Vanguard. It's a nice addition to the Hurricane and Scorp, with slightly larger targets in mind. Still, I'd throw 4 people into two Scorpius rather than one Redeemer I think. Let's find out how it performs.
I agree. It is almost as if it is the predator for the heavy fighter. I'm sure that pound for pound it may be more effectiveness at taking on a Hammerhead with a partner based on its design. If the nose is on all the guns can hit the target same cannot be said for the HH. But the HH is bad lol
I've seen so many changes over the years I don't even blink anymore.
More to come too
This is the most logical and reasonable stance I've heard about the new redeemer changes. Majority of youtubers and forums are just whining and complaining. As a redeemer owner myself, I'll still CCU this to something else now regardless tho. Hopefully the Mirai Guardian will be worth the switch.
Guardian is looking hot
With the tiny little hint they gave that guns will be able to forced to fire faster I think they want to turn the redeemer into a mini-hammerhead.
Yup. Good for hunting smaller ships heavy and below imo
Thanks for mentioning the seat placement, it's been my most hated feature of the ship of all time. Also components being placed on the top floor where you have to get them past a ladder. Still my original game package from 2014 tho
I'm glad I'm not the only one. Honestly that bothers me the absolute most. It prevents it from really being a drop ship.
as a compromise for the huge nerf i would like the return of the coffee maker in the kitchen area along with the beds upstairs and the drop seats with the drop hatch down stairs HOW THEY WERE ORIGINALLY. I also want the VTOL engines back with the vfx from the star marine teaser. ill also want the........oh who am i kidding. lets roll with what we got.
LOL we aint getting crap my friend
Spectrum: "Raa I got a crew of 10 we're veterans of the Redeemer, and we know for a FACT that this ship was 1000% destroyed by the nerfs! Its useless now bla bla bla"
Thanks for being a voice of reason, this game is a mad house rn
Spectrum is a zoo
I think balancing ships is needed in the game, and I personally think this is a fine change, however I think something as huge as weapon size shouldn't be subject to change, specially in a game where so much more can be tweaked, and given the current situation where they're basically selling people on one thing then delivering a completely different experience. Because let's face it, they're essentially changing the ship's role even if they don't change its designation.
I think showing a desire and willingness to change weapons and go against marketing is an overall good sign for the games direction. A s4 has a lot more shots than a s5.
I personally Like the Change to a more agile and less tanky Platform, think Like a supersized scorpius or Hurricane..
But by downsizing the Main weaponry they are clearly pushing it into a role where twin mounts are Not that usefull.
And yes, they need to Test where Things Go from Here but i would Like to See VR Style turrets in Themen of the Fury mx or talons with quad mounts (maybe s3's or even s4's)
I think with the downsize its gonna prey upon heavies and smaller. I think anyway. I would have to test it. My major concern is always fighters anyway.
@5:54 Thanks, I now hate the way the redeemers comically large turrets look after seeing the comparison vanguard. I almost want them to scale up the redeemer by ~20-30% physically so they look better. Reminds me of big head modes in FPS games.
NBA jam big head mode baby
The Sonichu lol good one
LOL
I feel the s5 guns will look silly small.
Thats the only gripe that remains if the agility changes are actually that impactful.
Maybe. But we may even get new turrets like the retaliate got
I think with the coming armor/penetration/component/engineering changes, they are setting up ships like the Redeemer to have better component redundancy.
I agree. And perhaps heavier armor.
If people give this a chance I think theyll find its the right place for it now, with proper crew and use its going to be a serious menace against fighters now, which can only be a good thing.
Agreed. People will be forced to give it a chance though;)
What if they nerfed the pilot guns to give back the size 5 turrets?
The beauty of the redeemer is that your turret gunners felt worth it.
I have always complained about multi crew ships having majority of the firepower in the pilot’s hands leading to nobody wanting to be a gunner when they could do more damage in their own ship.
Multicrew ships should have bad firepower for the pilot and good firepower for gunners to make being a gunner worth it.
Before the changes the redeemer could be considered following this philosophy as the pilot had 2x S4 and 2x S3 compared to a gunner with 2x s5 resulting in the gunner being a very important amount of the ship’s firepower.
The old connie and corsair were the worst multicrew designs as the gunners had tiny weapons and would be better off flying hornet’s alongside the connie.
The way I look at it is they lost the S3 shields and 1 size of weapons for a 80% performance increase. Also, S3 shields are being nerfed next. I will post about that in the next video. It seems like a good trade off all around.
Ya I own a Conny, Corsair, and the Deemer. Gotta say they are my favorite combat ship style. Keeping my fingers crossed they make turrets great again.
I've been following th concept of the Redeemer since day 1. I've always seen it as a baby HH, therefore an anti-fighter ship with agility. Unsure why people thought otherwise
No idea
Its likely CIG will change hardpoint loadout/swap options down the track..
Logical points made here, great comparisons!
Thanks man! I am glad they are willing to change hardpoints. I was afraid they wouldn't.
Redeemer's layout is wierd (jumpseats, bed location etc.).
I'm not agree with size point. It feels like dedicated military vessel, narrow corridors, lack of empty space
unlike the Conny and the Corsair.
Final balancing we will see when physicalized armor will be done, atmospheric flights will be done. I hope
We all hope. And yes the layout is awful and I HATE it
We literally think the same, I went and compared every ship in the game to its real life military counterpart and came up with the same conclusion. The redeemer is a Mi-35 Hind
Hind has better jumpnseat placement ;)
Plz cig
honestly think it shouldve been one or the other. id rather it be a glass cannon with size 5s than completely neutered. EDIT: just finished the video, i really like the idea of it being an attack helicopter, i think it would be good if it had a buff to its precision mode where it could fire from a good distance with decent accuracy to fill that fire support role. also cant wait for functional night vision/thermal sights, this ship would be ideal for em
Given its new changes it is gonna be better suited to hunt heavy fighters and below
Very happy with this change. I melted my lti redeemer earlier in the year when they nerfed it's handling and it became unbearable to fly.
It was like an 890j
Great video! Thanks for sharing. This is s sensible perspective
Glad you enjoyed it!
I'm gonna passively agree with your assessment, perhaps when SIG, Swings back their focus on master modes they will have a chance to make Turrets play better... I would like for turrets to be buffed with a higher rate of fire plus a slightly longer distance than the fighter's rate of fire vs fighters limit the fighter weapons ranges so there is a higher price to pay engaging combat multi-crew ships. One last suggestion if you are in decouple mode and hit the boost get rid of the artificial slowdown in space. that makes no sense in space in gravity sure. As far as multi-crew ships go, that have been classified as military base ships I believe CIG should add flak cannons it's a missing element in space combat especially if CIG is set on going down this path! If the intention is to be more like the "Freelancer 2" flight model a 6-degree slower successful flight model then it would be a great addition to larger ships flak cannons are very good at an area of deniability plus truly needed point defense weapons on multi-crew ships. What say you, kind sir?
I never played the freelancer games so I cannot comment. And while I would like to see flak and expect it I feel like people want flak beyond cool factor because the turrets as they are not just do not perform. What they need now at a minimum is in my opinion the following.
Greater weapon velocity on turret mounts.
Unnerfed auto gimbal.
Better turret traversal and speed.
By all counts a turret should be over powered because a player gives up his own ship to be in one. In general I agree with everything you said but I prefer lightweight solutions to problems. Adding flak will be great. But the core issues need fixed now and those are to my knowledge simple number changes.
I stuck with my MSR. From the gate, the ship had problems. So my expectations are set low. So... yeah.
No second exit... guns are weak... we now have a size 3 shield. But the Corsair is being nerfed... I feel for those people.
Connie is being nerfed too. Thank God. These are good changes.
@@BuzzCutPsycho So all ships are being pulled back. I still believe that they should have nerfed the size of guns not the control of two weapons to the co-pilot. Its just silly to sit there as a co-pilot and press a button with out aiming or gimbles. LOL
Choose one. Either you want a realistic hardcore simulator, or a fun game, you cannot have both. An F-16 cannot compete with an f-22. Realism isn’t fair, and every ship being able to take on every other ship isn’t fun.
Fun game
The two are not in fact mutually exclusive.
Yes they are. There is a reason MSFS and DCS don’t make you pre flight inspection or renew a license or maintain the aircraft systems. Some things are a time sink and are not fun to 99% of people. There is a reason shooter games don’t have you write a 5 paragraph order and ROC walks. It’s because there are clear reasonable lines that are crossed and detract from the enjoyment of the player. You can pretend that’s not true but it objectively is.
@@HyperLethalNova I disagree, I have immense fun playing MSFS. It's not objective at all, it is entirely subjective, even if you pretend that it isn't. Different people find enjoyment in different things and that is a fact.
@@Nemoticon I also have immense fun playing msfs, but because of what I said, it doesn’t make you do the tedious stuff that doesn’t contribute to the enjoyable components that pilots do in IRL life. You missed my point entirely.
I have been calling it "my attack helicopter" for a long time. I like the versatility of 6 shields. I'm going to miss the S5 guns
you will like the new performance
From what I've heard the double gimballed turrets were TOO good and they had to nerf them, so the capability is there. Especially if turrets have built in capacitors allowing for them to be fired longer, independently of other weapons systems while weapons affixed to the fuselage are fed by a single "Weapons capacitor" or single array.
Point being; turrets can track better and fire longer without necessarily affecting the other turrets OR guns on the ship until it's recharging, at which point we need to ensure the generators are capable of charging them all. But that said most ships (not all but most) with turrets will have crew who could, with a great engineer, communicate charge cycles with the turret teams to give them a boost in power when they need to recharge.
You're not wrong. I think the big issue with the turrets is velocity. A velocity buff may fix a lot more than we think. I'll be covering turrets next video.
In space, all else being equal, a turreted ship should defeat a fixed forward weapon (even gimballed) version EVERY time.
Fixed forward weapons are, at best, only optimal for engagements in heavy atmo where the movement of the turret(s) will adversely affect flight characteristics of the craft either balance/center of force, or increased drag/loss of aerodynamics.
This mortifies the light fighter types, but is really just common sense.
ANything that hurts the light fighter types are okay in my book. does that make me a jerk?
@@BuzzCutPsycho The light fighter mafia is a creature of CIGs own creation. I think those ships are great for people who enjoy the challenge of dueling - e.g. going 1v1 in equally matched (if not identical) craft OR the people who enjoy the coordinated team play that mimics how fighters and close attack craft are actually employed.
Very good arguments.. the Redeemer in my opinion is now where it always should have been. Good video!
Thanks! I look forward to 80% increased handling.
So PTU stats are on Erkul for 24.2. It’s even worse for the Deemer. They also reduced her HP from 101k to just 66k! Wtf? Also the 6 S2 shields are not going to give her 36k like we thought. More like 28k since they reduce the output of shielding almost across the board. What 3-5 players are going to pile into a ship with just 66k HP and 28k shields??? No one. It’s a flying coffin for 5 that will be popped in about 10 seconds by fighters. They’ve made the ship useless in its own role. They just ripped off everyone who paid a whopping $330 for this ship. It’s ok though, the Andromeda, a cheaper multi-role Gunship of the same size class got to keep her 180k HP. Eff you CIG. Though they wanted to encourage engineering and ship repair? You need to extend the life of multi crew ships if you want them alive long enough to repair and change fuses in combat. The Deemer will be space dust before anyone could get out of a seat to change a fuse.
S3 shields got nerfed, armor is coming, still need the whole picture. HP wont mean jack when components are how ships die. SUPPOSEDLY. LOL
I still remember the redeemer on release when it was giving the light fighters a run for its money. It set a bad precedent for multicrew gameplay being competitive with single players then and even the balancing that came after was not enough. That thing was always terribly overgunned and overshielded. Cant be that 5 people have the same firepower as 2 F7A, thats bad for sales and bad for the self respect of the fighter pilots.
we must defend fighter ego at all costs
oh god the drop seats >.< i really love this ship but you are absolutely correct on this
need to be down below!
After watch the "agility stats" the redeemer gonna be alright, it's a "heavy vanguard" with turrets.
Yup. I think it'll be better honestly. I see this all as a buffer
At the first look at some points the re-balancing of some ships look bad, but CIG tries to do something they themselves are not yet sure about.
If they where, they could do more faster or even do it almost all in one go and ask the community what the issues are and how it feels.
They always say we hear you, but they proof us time and time again that they are not really listening.
And their vision is also not complete, we see it, we feel it, we don't understand and we get frustrated.
The worst is CIG cannot explain it to us because the complete picture is not there yet.
Now all these small changes, rebalance, tuning over time combined with MM in its current state which is not finished.
Leads in the meantime to a worst flight and fight experience.
Yes, they tell us that Chris wants a WW2 dogfighting in Space, but that sounds just like the old Wing Commander where you just could fly on the six of enemy fighters.
SC is so much more then Wing Commander with a lot more ships and a balancing act with rock, paper, scissors is a big nightmare.
Even with having a good basic flight model which they still do not have this nightmare gets even worse.
The worst thing most people I speak to, tell me that they bought a ship that in lore would be a certain thing.
And CIG changes sometimes seem to be contra to that what was promised in Lore.
For example the Aegis Vanguard was a long distance heavy fighter that is as tough as nails and has a lot of redundancies and no matter what happens that no matter what happens and how much damage it will receive it will bring the crew home. Now the redundancies are gone, It is not sure if we can buy more modules and put it into the Vanguard it has a lot of extra component slots which are not filled at the moment. The problem is CIG doesn't know it or they just don't tell us.
About the Redeemer just for an example, the Redeemer would have some kind of phased shields which make it very hard to kill.
So we see a rebalance that they reduced the Shield to Size 2 everyone thinks that it is a big nerf and it might be so.
But CIG again doesn't say that these new Size 2 might be those Special Phased shields because they don't know it yet or they just don't mention it because they might think people know about it.
Let be honest if you have overlapping and phased shields with a Size 2 the regen would be much higher so if they do overlap it would be one tough nut to crack even more so than standard Size 3
shield.
The problem we have is clear and precise communication.
Even if you don't know what you are doing or try to do or even if it is part of a road with a destination.
This is something that CIG really needs to learn how to communicate.
At the moment Communication is all over the place you need to search for it and all the little pieces you need to gather and put together yourself.
And even then is it almost impossible to say if something is already of the table or not.
They often say communication is an Art and this is not an understatement.
Anyway it is all in the Eye of the Beholder.
And we don't know or see anything thru the fog of development as it is now.
The only thing we can do is relax sit back and hope CIG somehow gets it done.
You are spot on with CIG communication needing work. It is pretty rough, and the Vanguard is a good example of that. I do not see the value in long range currently and I hope it gets a re-visit and balanced, buffed, accordingly.
I want a cleaned up Brutus as a reward for in game rep with drake or even aegis.
I loved that drake one
Agree the nerf of shields, But I think turret should be 4S3 but not 2S4
that could work, but with the manuevering 2 S4 may work, keep in mind how big the cap is on the deemer, power plant aint touched yet
Except for the titan, and still the Connie, I’ve been so happy with the majority of ship changes.
Sometimes people just want to chase the meta, but giving each ship a personality good and bad qualities make the game fun and diverse
I'll cover Connie and corsair changes next
@@BuzzCutPsycho 🎉🥳👏🎊🙌🍾🍻
Thanks for the updated stats and info.
Our pleasure!
Good analysis, just the drop seat at the top makes me mad 😂
Same i hate that the most lol
They should have left the turrets alone, dropped 1 s3 shield and left it with its original maneuvering characteristics.
I don't see it as a Hind , but closer to a Spectre gunship. It should be matched to Connies and Corsairs - if not be a little better as a dedicated heavy Gunship.
Well with the S3 shield nerfs this thing may be better without them!
@@BuzzCutPsycho I wasn't aware of the S3 Shield nerfs, I'll check it out!
from a troop transport to a gunship and now its a flying coffin a ship good at nothing
Itll be a better Vanguard in some aspects
Melted it. Not interested... Everyone will do the same...
Speak for yourself. I love my redeemer, it's never leaving my fleet
Naaaaaaah. Always wanted it to not be a fat boat, I'll take the downsized turrets and shields to move like a Vanguard.
Now I can actually be a menace to fighters.
Your choice. I'm keeping mine
Dude, I am literally currently selling off my entire fleet since this and the Corsair nerf. I'm so over this game
The Redeemer was over gunned and over shielded. It was better to have two Redeemers than a crewed Hammerhead and that's just weird. Of course, they could have up gunned the Hammerhead.
Agreed 100%. I like the new speed for it too.
You can fly the vanguard with 1or better two players effectively! You would need more players on the redeemer to be as effective!! That’s the issue you can’t compare them unfortunately! I would rather have those players fly two vanguards than one redeemer…
Like I said it all depends on how powerful turrets are. Simple as.
People need to buckle up right now because if they are starting to tinker with the ships as they are doing so it means one thing and one thing only. Resources are flowing from SQ42 into SC where now game balance is the biggest question for the game going forward.
Every ship is going to get looked at, every economy route and even weapons & armor. We're going to see everything moving around until everything hits proper equilibrium. That is honestly a good thing at the end of it all. The core idea is to dislodge the META and make ships viable for content.
I wouldn't be surprised if lets say 6 months to a year we're going to see reverts when Damage 2.0 along with Weapon Changes comes out as well. Things are going to get interesting and I'm all for it.
Also edit:
The Redeemer is your Black hawk helicopter. I dont see black hawks carrying firepower to go toe to toe with Armor. That's why you have a Apachie escorting them.
I Do agree on one thing CIG needs to give us a AC-130 equivalent (Crusader ship designed a more sleeker version of the C Series without bombs or cargo) but the Redeemer is not it, its a insertion craft for Special Operations.
People are going to be very upset and you are right. A lot more balance and changes are coming and they're gonna make people unhappy. The S3 shields are all being changed as are S2s, and connie corsair. Its gonna be a wild ride.
@@BuzzCutPsycho When I signed up, I signed up knowing full well even my pledge ship will be subject to change. It even said it right as I pledged that CIG has final say on balance for the ship.
The core issue that no one is looking at is the META and how lopsided its made ships. You have people complaining about their X ship being underpowered because Y ship is OP. Now that CIG is taking time to start bringing balance to the game, the people who bought the Y ship because some TTV/UA-cam Influencer said this ship was meta [ we know exactly that ONE person is with their stupid Tier lists] is getting bent out of shape.
Its that meme.
"You bought X ship because its meta
I bought the ship because its cool
We are not the same"
How does its new mobility compare with the Corsair and Connie? Also if it was able to carry cargo like the Connie and Corsair then I’m sure they would be identical in size it’s only slightly smaller
Itll he more maneuverable than both in the current parameters
I think it was balanced if you compare it to solo Corsairs or Connies because if you put all the players in the Redeemer in the pilotseat of one of those you have more shields and weapons. So the unnerfed Redeemer makes sense to me from that point of view.
The Redeemer nerf makes only sense to me in a world where all the medium ships with a lot of pilot dps get nerfed.
Well you got your way connie and corsair getting pooped on
C! Spirit also needs at least 3x S2 shield
it sure does
4:20 "nimble" - it is as nimble as a coach bus
more nimble than it was!
I kind of agree with you on this and yes the issue is that turrets suck. In which case until they don't suck, let pilots fire the turret guns locked forward at least.
The fact you can't I get why, and I get that CIG basically are hostile to solo players. This all stems back to CIG breaking their word on the option of PvE only play many years ago now. Balance matters so much more when you are a PvP MMO vs PvE.
The disparity between AI enemies vs PvP is so large that you have to prioritise balance to PvP to such a degree that actual fun suffers.
Not saying Redeemer should not have been adjusted but the fact it needed so much adjusting since the day it first appeared is all because the obsession with PvP over everything else.
I do not get why CIG is so adverse to putting in a temp change to buff turrets. They are so unusable now it hurts.
@BuzzCutPsycho I made the mistake if using a referral LTI token to upgrade all the way to a Redeemer. Because of that I can never melt my Redeemer and just get say a Vanguard. I can only upgrade to a bigger more expensive ship which basically would be something where playing solo was even more a problem.
Eh...
Completely overlooked in the video - the role of each of the ships in it. The Redeemer is compared to the Corsair and the Connie Andromeda because it's a gunboat. The other three ships are not gunboats. They have different roles entirely. Three of the ships are decent cargo haulers, while the Redeemer is a dedicated combat vessel. Finally, the two non-Redeemer ships that aren't used as cargo haulers - the Vanguard and the Hammerhead - are both notorious for not being very effective in their respective roles.
In short, there's a strong argument (not found in this video) that the Vanguard and Hammerhead need to be buffed.
However, there's also word that CIG is conducting experiments with the shield sizes right now on Evo. This is VERY much needed, imo, as the jump from S2 to S3 is far too big (it shouldn't require over 16 S2 shields to reach the total hp of a single S3 shield). This will affect what the shield changes mean to the Redeemer.
This is the first round of changes for the redeemer, or most ships. They were never touched and given a baseline. The Redeemer had the same performance as an 890j. I don't get too caught up in the terminology.
@@BuzzCutPsycho 890J? The 890J is a civilian pleasure yacht with S4 shields that have over 450K hp. I'm not sure why you're comparing it to that ship.
And yes, terminology matters. "Freighter" is terminology. "Heavy fighter" is terminology. One term tells me that the ship is good at hauling stuff, but probably not good at fighting. The other term tells me that the ship is good at fighting, but probably can't move any freight. Words have meaning, which is why the fact that a Redeemer is a "gunship" is important. It means that the ship is capable of closing with and blasting the enemy, while surviving reasonable amounts of return fire. Otherwise the ship can't fulfill its role.
The gunships currently in the game are the Redeemer, Corsair, and Connie Andromeda. It should compare with the other two. However, while the other two have multi-role capability - being decent freight haulers of just under 100 SCU - the Redeemer is limited to its role as a gunship, with a measly two SCU in cargo space. Ergo, pound for pound it should outperform the other two ships in combat. Otherwise, why would you get a Redeemer when you can get equal or better combat performance plus additional capabilities from the Connie or Corsair?
Yeeeaaaa. Because multi-crew ships were in such a good place compared to single seat fighters that they needed a nerf. ROFLMAO
Edit: 1:15 All these ships have big components and will get blapped by a good pilot in a Buck (and now the Redeemer will get blapped even faster!).
Single seaters won't be an issue if the turrets get fixed
@@BuzzCutPsycho I will believe it when I see it. Despite how it may sound, I hope they do something. I am of the thought that a multicrew combat ship should beat a single seat fighter in almost all situations where skill levels are equal but so far CIG has not seemed to agree with that. At this point Multi-crews are a dumpster fire for PvP.
well i hope it gets the superior armor plating ...
I am sure it will
They made it a lot more nimble as it should have been
I think that is for the best. It isn't too big a ship tbh
@@BuzzCutPsycho Wasn't the original design in the great Starship contest for it to be a dropship? I've always thought of the Redeemer as a cross between an Apache and a Blackhawk, not a heavy fighter or something big. More designed for taking a small team into a hostile area, dropping them off near by, giving some air cover then picking them up to evac.
The price should be reduced too
Saving grace for Redeemer's future is blades being a thing and NPC crews not. So even if it sucks, it will suck less than trying to maneuver Constellations with pilot guns
price reduction wouldnt bother me
Problem for me is these ships are super strong in their advertisement so they sell a lot of them and get nerfed a lot after. What do you think about the Corsair nerf?
Next video. In general I'm okay with the change so long as they get a turret not fixed
Speaking of the Corsair, I was looking at this ship closely after hearing about the nerf and the bottom front guns do appear to be mounted to what looks to be a rotating large gimbal even though currently it's fixed so maybe this always was the intention for this ship that the gun can swivel left to right and up and down like a turret. If so then this might not be so bad for the copilot.
So basically the Redeemer is smaller and should be inferior in terms of firepower and shielding, even though it’s a military combat ship which the Corsair and Connie is not? Not considering the amount of people needed to get those dps numbers?
I don’t agree with you, I think the redeemer was balanced except maybe it had one size 3 shield too much. As it is in 3.24.2 it’s going straight from A tier to s tier and from a community favorite to a hangar queen that alienates the already divided community even more.
The redeemer had no buisness being equal to an A2 or Hammerhead, nor was it ever intended to be such. Besides, with the S3 shield nerfs and S2 shield buffs coming this will turn the ship into a monster provided turrets get better. Just IMO.
@@BuzzCutPsycho yes, it all depends on the balancing. Cig already started to nerf the Corsair, so the Connie will be next. That puts the redeemer in a better place again. I heared the Shield system gets a balance pass as well. I just think it’s a bad move by CIG to balance ships „here and there“ and not all of them at the same time considering the level of resentment already in the community.
Im very looking forward to the changes the deemer always felt it flies too heavy for its PHYSICAL size
I don't care about the components and shit, the ship looks smol it should fly smol
Also cig please make turrets great again
Terriorx is the #1 redeemer fan
@@BuzzCutPsycho no matter what change, if you love a ship you'll just fly the ship and learn its strengths and flaws... I adapted to the brick turn rates in 3.23 I don't see why I can't adapt again🤔
didn't really cared about the shields but i was really against the weapon nerf. I don't know why but the redeemer was way bigger than a vanguard in my mind. Your visual demonstration was really good and made me change my mind even if i liked the idea of big guns on this gunship. Do you have a video explaining in more depth why turrets sucks so bad and what would help them ?
I do not have one on turrets since I was waiting for the newest hud and patch to dive into them. And also why I never made a guide on them.
I may roll turrets into my next video about the corsair and Connie changes. Turrets remain the core issue with those changes too.
100% agree, and this is my favorite ship
I'm glad. I'm an enjoyer too.
Also, the Drake Corsair is getting a nerf. The Drake Corsair is losing 2 size 5 weapons and will be nerf to have 4 size 4 weapons instead of 4 size 5 weapons and 2 size 4 weapons. The Drake Corsair is an exploration vessel, not a military combat spaceship. People are getting angry at the massive nerf of the Drake Corsair because it cost $250.
I will be doing a video on that next, good call.
Comparing ship sizes then leaves out that the Redeemer has two decks and no cargo and the constellation and corsair have single decks with cargo… if they’d leaned into the anti fighter role a bit more and replaced the turrets with quad size 3s… leave out that the internal layout for the redeemer is stupid. Whatever
Bad ship design. No argument here. But the size still supports the numbers.
@@BuzzCutPsycho Can't wait until the Hindenburg airship gets sold in star citizen, the sheer size of the thing will give it millions of hitpoints, and turrets that are quad size 7 Aeres inferno gatlings for sure! Everyone knows that bigger size makes things tougher and more powerful. M1A2 Abrams stands zero chance in a slugging match with the Hindenburg!
The changes make sense i suppose, but i don't see how right now is the time to nerf the already useless multicrew ships
I can only assume it is the beginning of a multicrew pass
@@BuzzCutPsycho god willing
Balanced? It’s a military gunship, now it’s lame at combat to “balance” it against mostly civilian ships. They’ve completely ruined it, I won’t be pledging a dime after they’ve ruined it, the Corsair and the 400i.
It is also a game and balance is pretty important
@@BuzzCutPsycho Keep excusing their BS all you like, pathetic.
Ah good old changes…they never disappoint
Especially when people get upset!
"And what else so all these ships have in common" - they all suck?
For now. And a lot of that is turrets.
Love this upgraded Redeemer.
Upgraded is the correct word !
I never realized just how small the Redeemer is, those silhouettes really helped show the logic behind the changes.
unrelated: do you find your 'top attack' method with missiles is still the best method to use them, do you find the firebird and connie's off axis launch help with that? I'm also curious how you think the gladiator sits with its buffs, it feels squarely in the heavy fighter segment to me now.
It works less now due to missile speed changes. Comically they still kill the connie shield gens from the top profile.
In the first size comparison to the Corsair and the Andromeda, one is a war ship, and the others aren't. Compare apples to apples. If you take out the wings, fairings, and cargo spaces, not much size difference. Also is a $1,000,000 Ferrari faster than Ford pickup. Purpose built for different things. Comparing war ships to exploration and cargo ships???
It's a gunship. Not a fighter.
It isn't a Ferrari. It isn't a pickup. It is a video game asset designed to be used by players. And since it is a game, games have rules, and games must be balanced.
It doesn't matter what the classification is. It has the most firepower of any ship in its size and was all controlled by a single pilot. That is coming to an end. The marketing terminology does not trump balance, gameplay, and design.
Did you see the Corsair nerfs? The Connie is getting the same treatment. I will analyze that soon. Thanks for the comment, btw
@@BuzzCutPsycho Should they nurf the Aries as well. It is tiny and has a size 7 weapon. Pound for pound the most powerful if you are just talking gun power. No, there is a tradeoff, big guns bad maneuverability or some other disadvantage. I did not buy a vanguard. I don't want a vanguard, .... well, yes I do, but not the point..... I hope they don't nurf it to be like a vanguard... no comparison as one is a 2 person ship and the other is a 4 person ship and cost a lot more and useless without a crew.
I understand game balance but this is not that kind of game where you have direct game balance like an RTS. I don't expect to fight aurora against a Sabre and win (pay to win or work hard and earn in game). Guess it could happen but not likely, If there is a problem with a ship, make it more expensive. I like the game but it that kind of game, there is no play balance and if a corsair (explorer/ cargo ship) is supposed to be even remotely balanced with a gun ship... well I guess no one should buy gun ships as cargo ships are more useful. Sorry just ranting. The first ship I bought was a Drake Harold.. cool looking ship, loved the asymmetrical look. Got it when it just came out in concept. They completely changed it. I guess I am getting tired of buying ships and having to trade in ships I buy for something else because someone complains. I got the Redeemer when it was in concept from the competition. Just disappointed.
I am so glad you give CIG constructive criticism and think positive. I’m tired of all the negativity. Game doesn’t have all the mechanics in, and those will change the game all over again.
I will do the same for the connie/corsair video im working on