In lore at least, the Redeemer was described as being the gunship that could hunt and track down its targets due to its engines offering a high level of maneuverability. From the brochure: "The Redeemer’s VectorLock thruster design enables an unprecedented amount of mass manipulation by positioning the twin nacelles at optimal locations away from the ship’s center of gravity. This encompasses the benefit of increasing the overall stability of the vessel as well as expanding the combat maneuvers available to the pilot." So in lore, the more maneuverable the Redeemer is, the more its fits in its actual design theory. It was never meant to be the floating brick it was prior to these changes. However, they need to do something with its power distribution and shielding, because those are not inline at all right now.
my zero expectations, pie in the sky, hope is that they harken back to what the original designers of the redeemer wanted it to be, which was a drop ship. like you say the thrusters are massive as a point of deliberate design. so massive in fact, i think it would look really plausible for the redeemer to be carrying something heavy. they should put some kind of mag lock vehicle clamp on its very flat and featureless belly and let it carry a ground vehicle like an LAAT in starwars. make the redeemer a gunship dropship cross-class. by adding another task it can do, that forgives making it stinky at any particular single job.
@@Red66-VYCM Valkyrie is more similar to the LAAT gunship in star wars, but that ship is still pretty unbalanced, power crept, and in dire need of a MAJOR gold standard pass
I could be convinced and maybe even agree with the changes to the Redeemer's flight model and weapon sizes. But there's no denying that those changes were done NOW to sell the Paladin.
cig dislikes people not wanting to buy another reskinned redeemer, so they come up with a fairytale answer of why the redeemer needs to be nerfed (for a playstyle and game system thats yet to be developed and at best many years away from being in the game at all) they dont hate the redeemer, they hate their backers who dont just open their wallets every time cig comes knocking on their door. they have done that to many other ships, that were in the way of making sales and they will do it again. CiG have no respect for their backers and will lie to their face to try and weasel themselves out of scruteny.
@@gravity00x Yeah, and I honestly don't get why CIG is like this. Afaik most of their sales come from new players buying the 45$ package. So prioritizing making ships for whales to buy doesn't make sense to me. Wouldn't working on the game & making it better so it attracts more new players be more profitable?
At this point I hope one of the modules is a cargo version, at least it could be a unexpected cargo ship as nobody would look at a redeemer and think cargo. Could be a good drug runner if they did that.
it needs to be updated. i loved it, but the drop seats being upstairs and the "hab" being downstairs made no sense. also that little door on the ladder is pointless and needs to be gone. it gets stuck and messes up the climbing.
@@brickstonesonn9276 In terms of backer numbers, the starter packages are far larger yeah, but the whales bring in more money. eg 1000 people buying the $45 pack is less income than 50 people buying a $1000 pack.
Concept ships being in white box means nothing. The Odyssey was in greybox (they showed us the greybox layout) when they announced it's sale back in 2021. We are heading into 2025 and they haven't mention any progress on it since it was first announced.
@@IdleWorker lol yeah the Odyssey was the last straw for me. I've boycotted the pledge store until I get my Odyssey. And Absolutely no more concept purchases. Never again CIG.
Man I want the Odyssey so bad. Like I really, REALLY want it. But I do have good news, after the Perseus and the Galaxy are done, the Odyssey is one of the first runner ups on the production line. One of the vehicle leads talked about it very shortly where he was asked what was next after RSI, and he said MISC/Drake big ships are up next.
They pretty much showed the entire interior, plenty of wasted space and the hangar is wayyyy too deep so it could use a minor touchup but nothing crazy. It just needs art and tech and they have done zero of that work in almost 5 years. Proud of you for boycotting, Endeavor owners stand with you
The redeemer was originally slated for a dropship/gunship hybrid. I think the original modulartiy around it was for the dropship function or for a living quarters. I can't recall though, it's been something close to a decade at this point.
Why on earth would you want a drop ship with such light armor? I mean if you want all your friends to die in a fiery explosion before you hit the ground then the redeemer as a drop ship is perfect… otherwise use the valkyrie.
@@mrh5303 or just use a Corsair, Taurus, Caterpillar or literally anything bigger with a cargo bay.... There is zero incentive or situation in game where dropships are better for deliverig troops & ground vehicles than almost anything else than a cutty black or bigger.
@@mrh5303 Either you are sturdy, or you are fast - both has a trade off. The Redeemer, right now, is an agile craft which - according to the vision - is more suited for a fast-in-fast-out style of approach.
@@mrh5303 If you're under fire while dropping personnel, then it's probably not a good idea to drop them. The Redeember is more like a stealthier gunship, able to get in and out fast, it trades armor for speed and maneovrability, the idea being it'll be too fast to hit. The original video had it dropping people off quickly in a hangar as opposed to on a planet surfacer under fire - you'd probably want a Valkyrie for that - but it wasn't specifically meant as a dropship, it'll just have that option
@@mazack00 No. They meant the Redeemer. When they first announced modules, the Redeemer and the Retaliator were the very FIRST ships they talked about. There was no Valkyrie at that time.
Yea Origin ships are just in the dust now. 600i rework announced and then forgotten immediately. 400i just in a terrible state. Nothing new on the horizon. At least the 890J got the PDCs for all those owners out there.
They just completely blow off everyone that purchased a Redeemer "Gunship"; and it's supposed to be ignored. Their behavior is unacceptable, and should be remembered by everyone considering the purchase of ANY new ship. John Crew said: "Until the ship is in-game, it's all just speculation". Apparently, the "speculation" NEVER ends, and that new ship you just purchased... well guess what.
If they want the Deemer to be a lighter gunship then lean into that, make the manned turrets quad (or even 6) size 3s and turn the pilots dual size 4s into quad size 3s as well. Forward firepower would then be 14 S3 weapons. Accuracy by volume. That would be sick af.
We need our current concepts prioritized over these money grabs. Ballistics should have an internal depot that can be filled on ground or in cargo hold of multi crew. Then just give me a button to reload.
That’s all this is, money grab. So many backers have paid for concept ships in the past. It seems that the back log of concepts are going to be over looked. It is sad. The 4.0 release is broke as fuck and it was released to sell the guardian and to save face. Mike, generally is a backers content creator and most of the time he tells it like it is.
@@briananderson4032 currently broke as fuck but they did get tons of sales. Only 3% less than last year now, with the best January so far. I'm a fan of the guardian but I could have waited for one.
@@gowankommando true but people like saltemike should state stuff like that to but they dont he realy has a Hate-Love relationship with the game and its just bad for the community in my opinion. Same goes for people that see everything only positiv.
@@Schinken_ Because he is specifically speaking about the nerfing of ships right before new competitor ships are released in order to drive sales. Nerfing and buffing are normal game mechanics, but CIG is using it as a forced sales tactic which is really scummy.
@@senn4237 You know that the Nerfs are made months before the concept sales of the Paladin ore? Yes the Weapons are nerfed but with the shields it's not so clear sure 6 size S shields doesn't sound like much but it has his own strong points. First You can destroy Shields permanent. Second one large shield covers the entire ship but 6 small ships cover each one side individually. So Say the Large ship has 2000 Health the Small one has 300 then you have 1800 Life with the small ones. You also can now rotate the ships and the one shield thats damaged can recharge. That's something the one Large shield cannot do. So 6 small shields could be stronger then one Large shild. Also CIG stated that they want to balance and work on the systems more like Armor and Shields. So we will see more changes on that. Third The Redeemer is still not only a Gunship it still has place for extra soldiers and can be used as a drop ship .
In modern warfare, where are gunships utilized? It's not in naval warfare or air-to-air combat. They're aircraft used to attack ground targets. Recall that CIG has said ground "invasion" will be the only way to attack ground bases, which will be heavily shielded. So we know ground combat will become much more important. Redeemers are like helicopter gunships (like the AH-64 Apache); they're light, quick, but vulnerable to fire from the ground. The Paladin will be more like the fixed-wing AC-130, slower, less agile, but packing more firepower. For either one, the mission will be to suppress/destroy enemy ground forces. They'll be called in only after air superiority as been established (or with a serious fighter escort.)
You can fit way more people in the Redeemer, 9 people can be seated, so there is still a use if you dont want to use it as "the best gunship" and i feel the deemer is still a pretty great ship. With current Master Modes it does not even matter if you fly the "better" ship, because youre crewed anyway if someone else comes with the "counter". They are trying to design an alternative with a balance idea, i really dont mind until the whole flight system is finished. You are never gonna sit in "the better ship" if youre not facing these two exact ships, and if the deemer is faster for example... thats crucial in pvp at least thats what i hear people talk about. I think people are loosing their minds over nothing atm.
Yep, loosing minds over nothing. People repeat over and over to want the best space Sim ever but then loose their asses to buy the "best exclusive pay-to-win golden legendary top meta cool gimmick of the month". Nothing should be completely "Meta", everything should come with some flaw and so the rest would be good in their own way.
HUGE IFS, but: 1. IF - they can get the power issues for 6x S2s to a manageable state for the Redeemer. 2. IF - they can tune the Redeemer to be more like an "interceptor" with the future removal of MM, so that it has superior forward thrust. 3. IF - they follow threw on ballistics breaking components and making redundancy useful. Those would make the redeemer viable. On top of this, the redeemer can "hot swap" the S2 components while the Paladin will have to dock and repair for the S3 components. Who cares? No one yet. It might matter at some point. I'm still drawn to the Paladin for the 2-crew viability vs the minimum 3-person crew for the Redeemer.
In our broken gameworld the Redeemer was the nice thing being able to carry you home from a bunker fail cuz turrets had a hard time chewing on it XD nice memories...
Blatantly obvious. They could have just had the Paladin launch as an agile gunship and kept the Redeemer as is. The result would be the same - one with more power, one with more mobility. But, they know no one is buying a ship with weaker weapons within the same ship class. Alas, the Redeemer gets neutered so they can sell a ship to do what the redeemer used to do.
mans high on cracc cokkaine. makes up random sheet for internet points. its not a dropship, never was. doesnt have anything to drop with. was always a gunship.
@@Minishimirukaze "Dotted with turrets and missiles, the Redeemer also doubles as an armored landing craft capable of delivering armored soldiers for first person combat!" Directly from the Homepage.
The only thing they answered is the Redeemer was nerfed for this to take its place so this would sell better, because the stats of the Palidin were preferred over the redeemer nerf.
yes, so they shouldnt have nerfed the redeemer because the playstyle for which it has been nerfed doesnt exist and will not exist until 1.0. we all know they were grasping for straws with that argument to not look like absolute red nosed ha ha men, since they were caught and called out red handed, manipulating players into purchasing a ship that they would have no need for if the redeemer wouldnt have been nerfed. the paladin literally only has a permit for existing because of the castration of its predecesor.
@@gravity00x Same applies to the Valkyrie - the Valk was a re-inventing wheels design to oust the Redeemer from Sqn 42 (because CR hates the Redeemer as it's not his idea or design)
With modularity confirmed, CIG will probably finally swap the beds to the second floor, and drop seats to the bottom. Also being more nimble helps with the dropship role, and it has ok firepower still. I like how it'll become multi-role eventually
Removing one of the S3 shields would have been fine, IF they increase the maneuverability. Taking both S3 shields away and making the guns smaller now make it too large just for a pair of S4 turrets. They certainty haven't made it more maneuverable yet. If they can make it so the pilot can keep his guns on a medium fighter, maybe that can make up for it.
I don't know what game you guys are playing but in the SC I experience it's hella useful to roll faster to get your gunners a better firing angle. It's not about dodging, it's about getting the DPS to actually happen.
This is a perfect example of why the Mass of a ship should impact it's flight model. Standardize the amount of thrust that maneuvering thrusters can do across the board and make different sized maneuvering thrusters and engines for each weight class increasing the amount of thrust as the size of the thrusters increase. This game applies physics to nearly everything realistically but with these ships they decided mass doesn't matter and applied unrealistic/Arcady levels of maneuverability that no human can hope to survive. As a result, CIG will continue to struggle to balance ships that are within the same weight class.
CIG can use the Golden Triangle (Durability, Agility, and Fire Power) and balance accordingly. For example alien ships whose main thrusters also act as maneuvering thrusters could act as highly maneuverable glass cannons or highly maneuverable tanks with mediocre firepower. Just because this is supposed to be the most ambitious space game ever to be developed doesn't mean that CIG needs to reinvent the wheel for everything. They should utilize tried and true methods and practices that have set the standard in the industry and apply innovation where they see opportunities to do so.
On one hand it makes me happy to hear the Pally is in whitebox. On the other I'm a little frustrated for other older concept ships (arrastra, galaxy, others) appear to be in limbo.
Odyssey, Endeavor, Orion, Merchantman, Perseus, Nautilus, Genesis, Hull D (and E), Pioneer, Liberator, Ironclad, Kraken... Let me know if I missed any, I stopped counting once it got sad.
Giving the Redeemer more maneuverability with the nerf makes it into a heavier heavy fighter so they may have "fixed" one issue and created another in a MM world. G1 CIG.
I feel like the value of redundancy of components (more, despite smaller) and the modular bay is extremely undervalued. But, like most thing, right now, DPS is the only factor, so it's the focus. But it's just a right now issue. Once they add a cargo module it'll be a fan favorite mult-crew PVE ship too.
@@Mindbulletz is it equally preposterous to compare and contrast a concept ship to a currently flyable one? I mean, we should at least wait until the Paladin exists and is flyable and compare it to the Redeemer on the merits of the game as it exists at that future date, right? Otherwise, what are we even talking about? The Redeemer is WAY better than the Paladin right NOW, becuase it exists.
@@rescuejake I think somewhat, but not to the same degree. The Paladin could come in and feel totally balanced and its place totally justified, somehow. But we have the previous version of the Redeemer to compare, so we do have real experiences to compare to. The other aspect is that the Paladin is affecting the game right now, in the nerf of the Redeemer. Redeemer modules will not affect the game for the foreseeable future, and will be far after even the release of the Paladin unless they make major priority changes. The modules are a completely empty promise until they start working on them, too. It becomes less and less empty as they near completion, but they have completely stopped working on plenty of other giant reworks. Even if it will happen eventually, that time is just too far off and the game we are allowed to play is the game right now. For years.
I doubt this take will see a ton of sympathy given mikes tendency to be very pro multicrew gameplay. The way they describe the guns locking into a forward arc, and being usable by the pilot, NEEDS to be STANDARD feature on ALL ships with REMOTE turrets that default forward. this will necessarily boost the viability of soloing a ship SLIGHTLY which i know angers some people who want having social skills to confer them a larger advantage. And will change certain balance considerations greatly when the time comes. however, the gain in solo player functionality is tiny and insignificant compared to the "IMHO" terribly illogical and immersion shattering lore implication that many ship manufacturers simply decide not to add this functionality for no discernable or lore justifiable reason. being able to shoot in directions other than forward with a remote turret SHOULD be the advantage gained by bringing friends. you should not need friends for the remote turret guns to simply shoot forward if they can do so safely. No sane ship manufacturer would leave available DPS unavailable for no reason.
the dog dookie ai that we have today can drive your car, cook you dinner and tuck you in. chris robertus on his 90000 years in the future game: best i can do is u have to manually control the entire ship by hand and only 10% of it is acessible for the person in control.
@@gravity00x REAL my point exactly. There have to be ways to have engaging multi-crew gameplay that don’t involve. Taking a set of tasks that could easily be managed by one person and splitting that into multiple stations that APPARENTLY can’t communicate with each other at all. Apparently some time in the next 930 years we forget about LAN cables or team-viewer
The Paladin has a hole in its turret coverage and with the lack of any maneuverability it will have no chance at all vs fighters, where the redeemer does.
A "very manouverable" gunship makes no sense. A gunship's strength is its turrets, for them to be efficient you need to be a stable and robust platform, otherwise they will either a) move around too much to aim with any accuracy or b) be killed before they have a chance to do any damage.
I believe that redeemer and his speed will give him a really useful advantage in practice in the future. Especially in situations where he will be running away from Paladin.
People purchased the the Redeemer for it's originally posted "Technical Specs". For me, this sends the message the technical specs or other features for that matter, are NOT to be taken as etched in stone. This sends the clean message that " Technical Specs / Concept Sheets = Buyer Beware. Shame on me, lesson learned. Lastly, perhaps I'm missing it, but nowhere in the Redeemers advertisement does it speak to lower modular addition.
The Redeemer isn't fast and maneuverable enough to make up for its weaknesses. Ultimately, it requires too much crew to take advantage of its firepower, while the Paladin only needs 2 people (maybe 3 with an engineer) and has as much DPS per person with 2 crew as a Perseus will with 3. With its main turrets manned the Redeemer can put out only about 50% more dps than a single F8, while having comparable maneuverability, marginally better shields and hull HP, but requiring 3 people in order to do so. The Paladin on the other hand has comparable DPS to two F8s, while being significantly tankier and only requiring 2 people on board. If it turns as slow as the Redeemer used to, it will still be at a disadvantage vs 2 F8s because the pilot won't be able to keep guns on target, but the more primary turret probably will be able to do so. A pair of F7AII's may be a different story, but it's possible neither them nor the F8s will have the penetration to deal with its armor effectively.
Redeemer maneuverability falls in with heavy fighters, itll be able to maneuver within a ball with good defense compared to other heavy fighters, along with good turret coverage while flying in the ball.
There is no front page link to the Q&A on the RSI website - I notice from Mike's link that they buried it in Comms-Link / Engineering which, I may be wrong, is not where they normally put Q&As ... so I'm guessing they know they got roasted in the question gathering and will be even more roasted in the Q&A responses.
AI blades may turn the redeemer into a premier anti fighter platform. Also the redeemer was originally supposed to be a fast agile with heavy shields. And a mini dropship.
The only way the redeemer has enough agility to make up for the paladins dps/tankieness is if MM somehow magically makes agility worth it and a ship the size of the redeemer is able to dodge some damage/chase down fighters. But that is a pipe dream.
This. MM ruined speed & agilities importance in a fight & thus using "speed & agility" as a selling point is ridiculous, let alone when they've obviously nerfed the redeemer in bad faith, specifically to sell more ships, not to balance whatsoever, but because they need to sell more ships to stay afloat...
I feel things will start to make sense when using gunships on ground targets start to take place that and bases. Maybe they have more use there? Or sometime in the future we will see gunships have more of a role they can take in the verse other than DPS
If CIG is saying speed is the primary advantage of the Redeemer over the Paladin that just means CIG needs to keep making the Redeemer faster until it does have a tactical advantage due to speed. Basically the only way the Redeemer works in its current form is if it becomes a heavy fighter.
Its clear they made up questions, because there would be more questions about the Redeemer after they made the first statements. When will we see any changes those "speed and maneuverability" updates to the redeemer, and when will we see those modules for the redeemer considering the Paladid is in white box. How can you make an informed ship decision between the two when your ship isnt complete.
After I compared the Deemer to the new Guardian I was actually kind of relieved. The Deemer is actually the better Guardian! 2 SCU cargo, similar pilot weapon loadout, 6x the shields and actually similar flight performance after the buff 😅 plus the option for the turrets. All it's missing is a better powerplant to actually support all the components properly. It's kind of weird how good it looks next to the Guardian while looking horrible next to the Paladin...
The only way that the Redeemer trading shields and armor for speed and maneuverability makes sense is if it has the same fire power as the Paladin. Then the Redeemer could be a fast "glass cannon" or used for chasing down enemies or hunting targets. While the Paladin would be a more of a stay and fight floating tank. As it stand without the size 5 guns the Redeemer might not be able to take down targets fast enough to live long. I honestly think there wouldn't be nearly as many complaints if they made all these other changes but kept the size 5 guns for the Redeemer.
I don't know if CIG is planning for the deemer to be a super heavy fighter. The modular room may fit that role a little depending on modules. I personally haven't looked into maneuverability but if it matches or exceeds heavy fighters they may be pushing that role. Question is does the game need it and will guardian players like deeper eating their boats.
I like the way they specifically say "6 s2 shields can have a benefit in regeneration over 1 s3 shield"... no they can't, type/grade for type/grade 1 s3 regens significantly faster than 6 s2 shields.
I agree that the Redeemer's extra agility doesn't do it any good against fighters, but it does if it goes up against, say, a Paladin. It would probably actually win especially 1v1 because it can stay out of the Paladin's front firing arc. I also wouldn't discount the modularity so easily. Not everyone has 20 ships, and versatility can be great. Even if SaltEMike forgot about it, lots of people have been screaming for it.
So if CIG says agility (speed and maneuverability) wins over raw firepower and armor, then the Redeemer should win over Paladin, then.. ? We'll see about that. Also question is what kind of modular rooms Redeemer gets. I CCU'd mine, but forgot about the modularity. And what are those? Dropship module, cargo module, jails for bounty hunting?
The only way i could justify the more maneuverability would be that the Redeemer "Looks" more aero than the Paladin in Atmo. If we are talking about maneuverability and firepower per crew, the Hurricane comes to mind as a better, cheaper option. (BTW, Xian Railen was in Graybox with fully rigged animations and we still dont have it. So....)
I'll say this again on shields. The size shield should not just be a 0 - 100% HP pool. Damage to the shields should scale with the size weapons used against it. A S1-2 laser repeater should do much less damage to a S3 shield than a S2 or 1 shield. A S3 laser repeater should deal full damage to a S 1-2 shield, a little less to a S3 shield but a lot less to larger shields and so on and so on. This creates an actual use for dynamic shields instead of just 1 large health pool. Instead theyre making up for it with the regen rate which is kind of a janky way to solve it. A S3 ship shouldnt have to worry about a single gladius coming and just sitting in their blind spot for 5 minutes plinking you to death.
Shield regen is the way to go, they just need mods like in eve to allow faster or regen per sec. Honestly SC should copy alot of combat dynamics from eve. Lets be honest, in space you are not gonna be closer than a km or so, too many speed dynamics, this isnt atmosphere lol. Also the thought of being able to specifically target modules is laughable.
That "modular room" makes no sense for the Redeemer due to CIG messing up the interior layout. The crew quarters should have been in that dead-end on the upper deck. Now you have the beds/escape-pods in the module. So by swapping out the module you lose your entire crew quarters plus escape-pods. CIG really needs to to an interior rework for the Redeemer and move the crew quarters to the top and then move those 4 useless seats into the modular area so that it actually has a dropship module by default. Now that the guns and shields were intentionally gimped, they should give the Redeemer it's dropship role back. They need to do work on the Redeemer at any rate because atm it can't even fully power those 6xS2 shields!!
I think its good to have a light gunship and a heavier gunship. And since the Redeemer is quite small size wise it also made sense to make it the lighter gunship. I understand what their vision is but i also see why people complain. It will take a long while until their balancing is done and in any way will support this vision for these ships in game.
But then you literally just have a gunship that is not as good as the other. I understand the desire for variety and want that as well, but when the only meaningful metrics are DPS and durability, the redeemer comes up short, doubly so since it needs more players to make use of its weapons.
Already in whitebox….meanwhile a lot players waiting for other ships they are waiting for years by now, or others waiting at least for some meaningful updates on current ones….i don’t know how, but CIG always managed to disappoint me, even though I have no more expectations.
There is a problem with comparing Bubble vs FB Vs Quadrant and just caring about max shield hp. In terms of minimum damage required to bypass the shield 1 60K quadrant shield (max S3) only has a 15k minimum get through that and if your more mobile you can start damaging the hull, where the 6 S2s on the redeemer can have 37k MAX, and a minimum of 16.5k to damage the hull. A good pilot though will be trying to force you to shoot the less damaged shields in these cases, but hypothetically advantage should go to the redeemer in this regard too. Bets case scenario the S3 Shield ship is using 45K of its shield vs 37K of the Redeemer so although better still fairly close. so depending on how value it the redeemer can actually have a better shield system the paladin. Dps wise the anvil should get up to 12.5k DPS forward(full ballistic gats), with just 2 crew whereas the Redeemer can get 9k Dps Forward and 10K Total,(again all ballistic Gats) while requiring 3 for forward and 4 for the total. (Pre nerf redeemer was 11.5k forward and 13k, total) Here It definitely goes to the paladin having a a lower crew requirement for more damage. Interestingly though i think the redeemer can support 4 gunners and still have pilot guns while the anvil peaks at 3 gunners and missiles only for the pilot. The gun arcs look a lot better on the redeemer and with it possible to avoid the quad S5 turret paladin could bring it back to the redeemers favor no? Finally the redeemer looks like its a much smaller target . I feel like the 2 ships are a lot closer to each other then many people complaining about it. albeit i hated fighting the redeemer in ERTS before the nerf (took forever to kill and had ballistics that ignore shields) so i might be a little biased.
from a group that plays everyday we only use pretty much the following good fighter like F7 and F8, maybe some heavy fighters like glaives/guardian etc scorpius but whenever we move up to bigger ships we usually go for a connie/hammerhead/polaris there use to be a time where we would use the old redeemer to some bounties pve and pvp but it was a gamble mainly cause you could have 3 people using 1 ships with 4 s5's or literally 3 connies with 12 s5's now there is literally no reason for that all moving fast isnt gonna keep you from getting shredded by just more enemies
In order for the Redeemer to justify it's Agility buff. It needs to be able to basically be the Fighter of all variety hunters. That's the only way it makes sense to me.
Gunships are not meant to be maneuverable , but neither are they meant to be slouches, but steady platforms which offer supportive suppressive fire where required as part of either a defensive action or an assault action. Example: Defensive: Gunships supply cover fire while troops evacuate and retreat to drop ships to take them away from battlefield. Offensive: Gunships provide cover fire while drop ships supplying troops to assault an opening on the enemy's line. Gunships have a unique but dangerous role in any military scenario.
Apache, armed Blackhawk, Hind... Hercules 130, Osprey...attack helicopters and planes. Gunships pretty maneuverable with the exception of the large Hercules
@@Haegemon Thank you!! I did not realize that!! But the point is still the same that gunship fire is largely supportive fire which was the point I was trying to make.
A thought: don't leave PICO on any of the seats, Murphy will likely not let pilot have access to weapons. ;-) Maybe when turret AI blades are available, go ahead, park PICO in a manned turret. ;-D
If the Redeemer had 4 S4 guns, if not 2 S3 and 2 S5 in pilot's hands, then, manoeuvrability "could" matter, but not afte ran all around nerf like this! I tried to find a reason to switch an Harbinger for a Redeemer and I couldn't find any
To me a Gunship is an aircraft designed to attack air-to-ground. So, the Redeemer may find a scenario to fit based on the geography of the map. Attack helicopters are fragile so they rely on stealth and maneuverability. The Redeemer seems to be narrower, the ability to move inside a dense asteroid field or narrow canyons should be easier. The Paladin is a tank so it should go for open terrains to bring hell to the structures below.
@jrsydvl7218 He only uses WW2 for the flight model because that is what George Lucas used for StarWars Back in the day. It's the most used by cinematography of sci-fi. Bacl to WW2, the Germans used the Stuka light bomber to atrack ground targets but that kind of plane was labeled as Tactical Bomber afterwards.
@@Haegemon True but both sides turned their engineers loose with large guns, light cannons and mounting brackets to see what they came up with. The tactical and light bomber frames allowed them to make tank and bomber busters.
of course the redeemer isnt gonna outmaneuver a gladius but a direct battle would be interesting. in the category of gunships, how does it perform against other gunships, against capital ships, its not just the one (light fighter) dimension it is supposed to loose to anyway id say :)
I don't get it so please explain, I have been outside the Star Citizen loop for a long while. I backed in 2015, but since then it's honestly their job to just finish the game. In what way do master modes negate manoeuvrability? Balancing armour with agility has been a successful concept since the very first Wing Commander game.
5:36 I feel pretty pissed off. This ship isn't needed right now. Furthermore, my only concept ship in my fleet was debuted in 2021 thus it should be in whitebox over the Paladin.
What I don't get is why does anyone think that a "nimble" gunship is useful? That's just a heavy fighter. Gunships should be tanky, slow, and have a lot of firepower. In reality, what we have is a Constellation with much less cargo capacity and missiles, with slightly better roll.
maneuverability makes sense already. Any fight around POI's with asteroids and things to hide behind and use as cover. Enemy ship out in the open, or even behind an asteroid, you could get around it and blast them then hide behind it and zip around etc etc. Not even a hypothetical, go fight around asteroids. This is just a map design issue IMHO.
Yeah lets make the gunship weaker and faster, ooh and as a bonus, the new speed and turn rate means the gunners can never track their targets. Go dev team!
1:43 gunship maneuverability. Lol. It’s a fancy way to say “we made it so light fighters can kill it”. They killed the concept of the redeemer. The Hammerhead was the fighter interdictor. The Redeemer was the anti-large ship heavy hitter. Now? Just use a hurricane instead. Same shields. Faster, more firepower. Cheaper. I think the problem is that CiG don’t have a clue on how to approach large ship fighting. It doesn’t matter how much weapons you stick to a row boat, it’s never going to sink a battleship. You should not be able to kill large ships with an Aurora. Period.
They should make a solo miner Drake instead, the only answer they need is: come on its Drake, if a ship exists there should be a Drake version of it according to Rule 2934. Not everyone wants to fly a pe pe. But they have to make a gunship for some reason
Yes 🙌🏼 such an underrated comment, mining ship with a size 3 laser could even repurpose the mole. They could get rid of side lasers for generators for size 3-4 laser in the front.
I agree and i am not even a miner😅 There is a large disparity in variations between industry & combat oriented ships, that was always unrealistic to me. In a lived in universe you would have way more industrial & agrar vehicles & variations of those than combat oriented ones, there are probably vastly more types of tractors, bulldozers, cranes and so on than, tank variants in service.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
“The people who make the ships don’t understand the video game.” Quote of the year.
And total projection
@@stratvidsno just obvious to anyone who has played for more than 1 hour
Wrong. See my post, this ship was my idea you just don't understand its role.
Definitely not @@UpTheChels10
In lore at least, the Redeemer was described as being the gunship that could hunt and track down its targets due to its engines offering a high level of maneuverability. From the brochure: "The Redeemer’s VectorLock thruster design enables an unprecedented amount of mass manipulation by positioning the twin nacelles at optimal locations away from the ship’s center of gravity. This encompasses the benefit of increasing the overall stability of the vessel as well as expanding the combat maneuvers available to the pilot." So in lore, the more maneuverable the Redeemer is, the more its fits in its actual design theory. It was never meant to be the floating brick it was prior to these changes. However, they need to do something with its power distribution and shielding, because those are not inline at all right now.
my zero expectations, pie in the sky, hope is that they harken back to what the original designers of the redeemer wanted it to be, which was a drop ship. like you say the thrusters are massive as a point of deliberate design. so massive in fact, i think it would look really plausible for the redeemer to be carrying something heavy. they should put some kind of mag lock vehicle clamp on its very flat and featureless belly and let it carry a ground vehicle like an LAAT in starwars. make the redeemer a gunship dropship cross-class. by adding another task it can do, that forgives making it stinky at any particular single job.
@@Red66-VYCM Valkyrie is more similar to the LAAT gunship in star wars, but that ship is still pretty unbalanced, power crept, and in dire need of a MAJOR gold standard pass
@@Red66-VYCM Easily accomplished with a drop-seat module.
I could be convinced and maybe even agree with the changes to the Redeemer's flight model and weapon sizes. But there's no denying that those changes were done NOW to sell the Paladin.
CR really dislikes the redeemer. why they ever thought a community designed ship was a good idea if they really hate implementing it is beyond me
cig dislikes people not wanting to buy another reskinned redeemer, so they come up with a fairytale answer of why the redeemer needs to be nerfed (for a playstyle and game system thats yet to be developed and at best many years away from being in the game at all)
they dont hate the redeemer, they hate their backers who dont just open their wallets every time cig comes knocking on their door.
they have done that to many other ships, that were in the way of making sales and they will do it again. CiG have no respect for their backers and will lie to their face to try and weasel themselves out of scruteny.
@@gravity00x
Yeah, and I honestly don't get why CIG is like this. Afaik most of their sales come from new players buying the 45$ package. So prioritizing making ships for whales to buy doesn't make sense to me. Wouldn't working on the game & making it better so it attracts more new players be more profitable?
At this point I hope one of the modules is a cargo version, at least it could be a unexpected cargo ship as nobody would look at a redeemer and think cargo.
Could be a good drug runner if they did that.
it needs to be updated. i loved it, but the drop seats being upstairs and the "hab" being downstairs made no sense. also that little door on the ladder is pointless and needs to be gone. it gets stuck and messes up the climbing.
@@brickstonesonn9276 In terms of backer numbers, the starter packages are far larger yeah, but the whales bring in more money. eg 1000 people buying the $45 pack is less income than 50 people buying a $1000 pack.
Concept ships being in white box means nothing. The Odyssey was in greybox (they showed us the greybox layout) when they announced it's sale back in 2021. We are heading into 2025 and they haven't mention any progress on it since it was first announced.
that is why you shouldnt waste money on direct to backlog ships
@@IdleWorker lol yeah the Odyssey was the last straw for me. I've boycotted the pledge store until I get my Odyssey. And Absolutely no more concept purchases. Never again CIG.
Man I want the Odyssey so bad. Like I really, REALLY want it. But I do have good news, after the Perseus and the Galaxy are done, the Odyssey is one of the first runner ups on the production line. One of the vehicle leads talked about it very shortly where he was asked what was next after RSI, and he said MISC/Drake big ships are up next.
Same for the Orion, it was in white box years ago and now nothing.
They pretty much showed the entire interior, plenty of wasted space and the hangar is wayyyy too deep so it could use a minor touchup but nothing crazy. It just needs art and tech and they have done zero of that work in almost 5 years. Proud of you for boycotting, Endeavor owners stand with you
Oh no you Paladidn’t
I agree this time
Goddamit i was gonna say that xd
I see you as top comment everywhere it feels like lol
reddit comment
RUclips comment
The redeemer was originally slated for a dropship/gunship hybrid. I think the original modulartiy around it was for the dropship function or for a living quarters. I can't recall though, it's been something close to a decade at this point.
Why on earth would you want a drop ship with such light armor? I mean if you want all your friends to die in a fiery explosion before you hit the ground then the redeemer as a drop ship is perfect… otherwise use the valkyrie.
@@mrh5303 or just use a Corsair, Taurus, Caterpillar or literally anything bigger with a cargo bay.... There is zero incentive or situation in game where dropships are better for deliverig troops & ground vehicles than almost anything else than a cutty black or bigger.
@@mrh5303 Either you are sturdy, or you are fast - both has a trade off. The Redeemer, right now, is an agile craft which - according to the vision - is more suited for a fast-in-fast-out style of approach.
@@mrh5303 If you're under fire while dropping personnel, then it's probably not a good idea to drop them. The Redeember is more like a stealthier gunship, able to get in and out fast, it trades armor for speed and maneovrability, the idea being it'll be too fast to hit. The original video had it dropping people off quickly in a hangar as opposed to on a planet surfacer under fire - you'd probably want a Valkyrie for that - but it wasn't specifically meant as a dropship, it'll just have that option
@@DerDrecksack87 Redeemer is a lot bigger than a Cutlass believe it or not
They ignored all of the top questions….
"Modularity for the Redeemer lower floor", planned since 2014. I'm a "veteran", I know...
Was about to say, that they even have the audacity to bring up ship modules at this point is just... *picardfacepalm*
Pretty sure they meant the Vanguard... They sold those BUKs a looong time ago
I remember when modularity was planned for the Avenger. We got variants instead, because they could sell more ships that way.
Arriving, in game, in Q3 2032.
@@mazack00 No. They meant the Redeemer. When they first announced modules, the Redeemer and the Retaliator were the very FIRST ships they talked about. There was no Valkyrie at that time.
They talk about component redundancy, but removed the redundancy in the 400i (but added it to Zeus ES)
Yea Origin ships are just in the dust now. 600i rework announced and then forgotten immediately. 400i just in a terrible state. Nothing new on the horizon. At least the 890J got the PDCs for all those owners out there.
@@senn4237 PDCs? I got a jump. Wouldn't mind knowing what I got.
They need to add X style "community notes" to Q&A answers. That would be hilarious.
Yeah but does the Redeemer's 6 size 2 Shields draw more power than one size 3 and give less protection? That regen rate would have to be insane.
They just completely blow off everyone that purchased a Redeemer "Gunship"; and it's supposed to be ignored.
Their behavior is unacceptable, and should be remembered by everyone considering the purchase of ANY new ship.
John Crew said: "Until the ship is in-game, it's all just speculation". Apparently, the "speculation" NEVER ends, and that new ship you just purchased... well guess what.
Modular Redeemer... First move the crew cabin up top. It's silly to have the jump seats up the ladder bottleneck.
I'm of the opinion that all gunships should be slow and have big guns, that's what makes them gunships
If they want the Deemer to be a lighter gunship then lean into that, make the manned turrets quad (or even 6) size 3s and turn the pilots dual size 4s into quad size 3s as well. Forward firepower would then be 14 S3 weapons. Accuracy by volume. That would be sick af.
My biggest problem right now with the Redeemer is the fact that it has no power to distribute
We need our current concepts prioritized over these money grabs.
Ballistics should have an internal depot that can be filled on ground or in cargo hold of multi crew. Then just give me a button to reload.
That’s all this is, money grab. So many backers have paid for concept ships in the past. It seems that the back log of concepts are going to be over looked. It is sad. The 4.0 release is broke as fuck and it was released to sell the guardian and to save face. Mike, generally is a backers content creator and most of the time he tells it like it is.
Not money grab, just sales. No one is making you by it... learn to control yourselves
It's a money grab...
@@briananderson4032 currently broke as fuck but they did get tons of sales. Only 3% less than last year now, with the best January so far. I'm a fan of the guardian but I could have waited for one.
The Redeemer would need to be much more nimble to match what they're saying.
I havent bought anything since the all the nerfs.
They also buffed some ships its balancing buff and nerf. But most people dont talk about the buffs because people like to be angry especially him.
@@Schinken_That's because happy people don't complain
@@gowankommando true but people like saltemike should state stuff like that to but they dont he realy has a Hate-Love relationship with the game and its just bad for the community in my opinion.
Same goes for people that see everything only positiv.
@@Schinken_ Because he is specifically speaking about the nerfing of ships right before new competitor ships are released in order to drive sales. Nerfing and buffing are normal game mechanics, but CIG is using it as a forced sales tactic which is really scummy.
@@senn4237 You know that the Nerfs are made months before the concept sales of the Paladin ore?
Yes the Weapons are nerfed but with the shields it's not so clear sure 6 size S shields doesn't sound like much but it has his own strong points. First You can destroy Shields permanent.
Second one large shield covers the entire ship but 6 small ships cover each one side individually. So Say the Large ship has 2000 Health the Small one has 300 then you have 1800 Life with the small ones. You also can now rotate the ships and the one shield thats damaged can recharge. That's something the one Large shield cannot do.
So 6 small shields could be stronger then one Large shild. Also CIG stated that they want to balance and work on the systems more like Armor and Shields. So we will see more changes on that.
Third The Redeemer is still not only a Gunship it still has place for extra soldiers and can be used as a drop ship .
In modern warfare, where are gunships utilized? It's not in naval warfare or air-to-air combat. They're aircraft used to attack ground targets. Recall that CIG has said ground "invasion" will be the only way to attack ground bases, which will be heavily shielded. So we know ground combat will become much more important. Redeemers are like helicopter gunships (like the AH-64 Apache); they're light, quick, but vulnerable to fire from the ground. The Paladin will be more like the fixed-wing AC-130, slower, less agile, but packing more firepower. For either one, the mission will be to suppress/destroy enemy ground forces. They'll be called in only after air superiority as been established (or with a serious fighter escort.)
You can fit way more people in the Redeemer, 9 people can be seated, so there is still a use if you dont want to use it as "the best gunship" and i feel the deemer is still a pretty great ship.
With current Master Modes it does not even matter if you fly the "better" ship, because youre crewed anyway if someone else comes with the "counter".
They are trying to design an alternative with a balance idea, i really dont mind until the whole flight system is finished.
You are never gonna sit in "the better ship" if youre not facing these two exact ships, and if the deemer is faster for example... thats crucial in pvp at least thats what i hear people talk about.
I think people are loosing their minds over nothing atm.
Yep, loosing minds over nothing. People repeat over and over to want the best space Sim ever but then loose their asses to buy the "best exclusive pay-to-win golden legendary top meta cool gimmick of the month". Nothing should be completely "Meta", everything should come with some flaw and so the rest would be good in their own way.
HUGE IFS, but:
1. IF - they can get the power issues for 6x S2s to a manageable state for the Redeemer.
2. IF - they can tune the Redeemer to be more like an "interceptor" with the future removal of MM, so that it has superior forward thrust.
3. IF - they follow threw on ballistics breaking components and making redundancy useful.
Those would make the redeemer viable. On top of this, the redeemer can "hot swap" the S2 components while the Paladin will have to dock and repair for the S3 components. Who cares? No one yet. It might matter at some point. I'm still drawn to the Paladin for the 2-crew viability vs the minimum 3-person crew for the Redeemer.
In our broken gameworld the Redeemer was the nice thing being able to carry you home from a bunker fail cuz turrets had a hard time chewing on it XD nice memories...
We're lucky if half the questions answered in a Q&A aren't stupid questions.
they should anwaer real questions in their qna
CIG dodging questions like the desynced ai does to my bullets.
Blatantly obvious. They could have just had the Paladin launch as an agile gunship and kept the Redeemer as is. The result would be the same - one with more power, one with more mobility. But, they know no one is buying a ship with weaker weapons within the same ship class. Alas, the Redeemer gets neutered so they can sell a ship to do what the redeemer used to do.
the problem is, the redeemer is already pretty small and sleek. Making the fatass paladin the agile gunship creates a narrative disonance.
With the reconception, the Redeemer is a drop ship - coming in and going out hard, quickly. The Paladin comes to stay.
Have you seen the Redeemer's ground clearance???
What’s it dropping if it ain’t got no drop seats?
mans high on cracc cokkaine. makes up random sheet for internet points. its not a dropship, never was. doesnt have anything to drop with. was always a gunship.
@@Minishimirukaze "Dotted with turrets and missiles, the Redeemer also doubles as an armored landing craft capable of delivering armored soldiers for first person combat!"
Directly from the Homepage.
@@Minishimirukaze If it "ain't got no drop seats" then how many does it have?
The only thing they answered is the Redeemer was nerfed for this to take its place so this would sell better, because the stats of the Palidin were preferred over the redeemer nerf.
Truth is, until 1.0 nothing matters.
Truth
yes, so they shouldnt have nerfed the redeemer because the playstyle for which it has been nerfed doesnt exist and will not exist until 1.0. we all know they were grasping for straws with that argument to not look like absolute red nosed ha ha men, since they were caught and called out red handed, manipulating players into purchasing a ship that they would have no need for if the redeemer wouldnt have been nerfed. the paladin literally only has a permit for existing because of the castration of its predecesor.
@@gravity00x Same applies to the Valkyrie - the Valk was a re-inventing wheels design to oust the Redeemer from Sqn 42 (because CR hates the Redeemer as it's not his idea or design)
With modularity confirmed, CIG will probably finally swap the beds to the second floor, and drop seats to the bottom. Also being more nimble helps with the dropship role, and it has ok firepower still. I like how it'll become multi-role eventually
Removing one of the S3 shields would have been fine, IF they increase the maneuverability. Taking both S3 shields away and making the guns smaller now make it too large just for a pair of S4 turrets. They certainty haven't made it more maneuverable yet. If they can make it so the pilot can keep his guns on a medium fighter, maybe that can make up for it.
I don't know what game you guys are playing but in the SC I experience it's hella useful to roll faster to get your gunners a better firing angle. It's not about dodging, it's about getting the DPS to actually happen.
Mike doesn't have the first clue how pvp works but as usual speaks as if he's an expert. Same thing every time he talks about development
This is a perfect example of why the Mass of a ship should impact it's flight model. Standardize the amount of thrust that maneuvering thrusters can do across the board and make different sized maneuvering thrusters and engines for each weight class increasing the amount of thrust as the size of the thrusters increase.
This game applies physics to nearly everything realistically but with these ships they decided mass doesn't matter and applied unrealistic/Arcady levels of maneuverability that no human can hope to survive. As a result, CIG will continue to struggle to balance ships that are within the same weight class.
CIG can use the Golden Triangle (Durability, Agility, and Fire Power) and balance accordingly. For example alien ships whose main thrusters also act as maneuvering thrusters could act as highly maneuverable glass cannons or highly maneuverable tanks with mediocre firepower. Just because this is supposed to be the most ambitious space game ever to be developed doesn't mean that CIG needs to reinvent the wheel for everything. They should utilize tried and true methods and practices that have set the standard in the industry and apply innovation where they see opportunities to do so.
All they had to do was make one a shield tank and one a hull tank. Both have use cases and it doesn’t ruin either of the ships.
That's a very Eve solution.
Dont think redeemer was meant to be a tank at all
The Valkyrie needs some love. No storage, no gun rack, ramp button not physicalized. It’s my favorite roc mining pick up truck.
On one hand it makes me happy to hear the Pally is in whitebox. On the other I'm a little frustrated for other older concept ships (arrastra, galaxy, others) appear to be in limbo.
Odyssey, Endeavor, Orion, Merchantman, Perseus, Nautilus, Genesis, Hull D (and E), Pioneer, Liberator, Ironclad, Kraken...
Let me know if I missed any, I stopped counting once it got sad.
@@arenomusicPerseus, pioneer, and ironclad are confirmed being worked on
Giving the Redeemer more maneuverability with the nerf makes it into a heavier heavy fighter so they may have "fixed" one issue and created another in a MM world. G1 CIG.
I feel like the value of redundancy of components (more, despite smaller) and the modular bay is extremely undervalued. But, like most thing, right now, DPS is the only factor, so it's the focus. But it's just a right now issue. Once they add a cargo module it'll be a fan favorite mult-crew PVE ship too.
The modular bay only has value once it's in the game. It's preposterous to count it towards current game balance.
The rest of what you said is correct, but "right now" usually lasts years in Star Citizen.
@@Mindbulletz is it equally preposterous to compare and contrast a concept ship to a currently flyable one? I mean, we should at least wait until the Paladin exists and is flyable and compare it to the Redeemer on the merits of the game as it exists at that future date, right?
Otherwise, what are we even talking about? The Redeemer is WAY better than the Paladin right NOW, becuase it exists.
@@rescuejake I think somewhat, but not to the same degree. The Paladin could come in and feel totally balanced and its place totally justified, somehow. But we have the previous version of the Redeemer to compare, so we do have real experiences to compare to.
The other aspect is that the Paladin is affecting the game right now, in the nerf of the Redeemer. Redeemer modules will not affect the game for the foreseeable future, and will be far after even the release of the Paladin unless they make major priority changes.
The modules are a completely empty promise until they start working on them, too. It becomes less and less empty as they near completion, but they have completely stopped working on plenty of other giant reworks. Even if it will happen eventually, that time is just too far off and the game we are allowed to play is the game right now. For years.
I doubt this take will see a ton of sympathy given mikes tendency to be very pro multicrew gameplay.
The way they describe the guns locking into a forward arc, and being usable by the pilot, NEEDS to be STANDARD feature on ALL ships with REMOTE turrets that default forward. this will necessarily boost the viability of soloing a ship SLIGHTLY which i know angers some people who want having social skills to confer them a larger advantage. And will change certain balance considerations greatly when the time comes. however, the gain in solo player functionality is tiny and insignificant compared to the "IMHO" terribly illogical and immersion shattering lore implication that many ship manufacturers simply decide not to add this functionality for no discernable or lore justifiable reason. being able to shoot in directions other than forward with a remote turret SHOULD be the advantage gained by bringing friends. you should not need friends for the remote turret guns to simply shoot forward if they can do so safely. No sane ship manufacturer would leave available DPS unavailable for no reason.
Its not the ship manufacturers who isnt sane ...
the dog dookie ai that we have today can drive your car, cook you dinner and tuck you in.
chris robertus on his 90000 years in the future game: best i can do is u have to manually control the entire ship by hand and only 10% of it is acessible for the person in control.
@@gravity00x REAL my point exactly. There have to be ways to have engaging multi-crew gameplay that don’t involve. Taking a set of tasks that could easily be managed by one person and splitting that into multiple stations that APPARENTLY can’t communicate with each other at all. Apparently some time in the next 930 years we forget about LAN cables or team-viewer
The Paladin has a hole in its turret coverage and with the lack of any maneuverability it will have no chance at all vs fighters, where the redeemer does.
A "very manouverable" gunship makes no sense.
A gunship's strength is its turrets, for them to be efficient you need to be a stable and robust platform, otherwise they will either a) move around too much to aim with any accuracy or b) be killed before they have a chance to do any damage.
I believe that redeemer and his speed will give him a really useful advantage in practice in the future. Especially in situations where he will be running away from Paladin.
I love how they keep releasing new ships but never finishing the backlog of ships they’ve sold years ago and just holding it as free money
Remember the Merchantman was in whitebox at one point.
People purchased the the Redeemer for it's originally posted "Technical Specs". For me, this sends the message the technical specs or other features for that matter, are NOT to be taken as etched in stone. This sends the clean message that " Technical Specs / Concept Sheets = Buyer Beware. Shame on me, lesson learned. Lastly, perhaps I'm missing it, but nowhere in the Redeemers advertisement does it speak to lower modular addition.
The Redeemer isn't fast and maneuverable enough to make up for its weaknesses. Ultimately, it requires too much crew to take advantage of its firepower, while the Paladin only needs 2 people (maybe 3 with an engineer) and has as much DPS per person with 2 crew as a Perseus will with 3. With its main turrets manned the Redeemer can put out only about 50% more dps than a single F8, while having comparable maneuverability, marginally better shields and hull HP, but requiring 3 people in order to do so.
The Paladin on the other hand has comparable DPS to two F8s, while being significantly tankier and only requiring 2 people on board. If it turns as slow as the Redeemer used to, it will still be at a disadvantage vs 2 F8s because the pilot won't be able to keep guns on target, but the more primary turret probably will be able to do so. A pair of F7AII's may be a different story, but it's possible neither them nor the F8s will have the penetration to deal with its armor effectively.
Redeemer maneuverability falls in with heavy fighters, itll be able to maneuver within a ball with good defense compared to other heavy fighters, along with good turret coverage while flying in the ball.
There is no front page link to the Q&A on the RSI website - I notice from Mike's link that they buried it in Comms-Link / Engineering which, I may be wrong, is not where they normally put Q&As ... so I'm guessing they know they got roasted in the question gathering and will be even more roasted in the Q&A responses.
AI blades may turn the redeemer into a premier anti fighter platform. Also the redeemer was originally supposed to be a fast agile with heavy shields. And a mini dropship.
The Redeemer was supposed to be everything, but for now they have made it nothing.
The only way the redeemer has enough agility to make up for the paladins dps/tankieness is if MM somehow magically makes agility worth it and a ship the size of the redeemer is able to dodge some damage/chase down fighters.
But that is a pipe dream.
This.
MM ruined speed & agilities importance in a fight & thus using "speed & agility" as a selling point is ridiculous, let alone when they've obviously nerfed the redeemer in bad faith, specifically to sell more ships, not to balance whatsoever, but because they need to sell more ships to stay afloat...
yeahh. just how i thought it was going to go
I feel things will start to make sense when using gunships on ground targets start to take place that and bases. Maybe they have more use there? Or sometime in the future we will see gunships have more of a role they can take in the verse other than DPS
If CIG is saying speed is the primary advantage of the Redeemer over the Paladin that just means CIG needs to keep making the Redeemer faster until it does have a tactical advantage due to speed.
Basically the only way the Redeemer works in its current form is if it becomes a heavy fighter.
Its clear they made up questions, because there would be more questions about the Redeemer after they made the first statements. When will we see any changes those "speed and maneuverability" updates to the redeemer, and when will we see those modules for the redeemer considering the Paladid is in white box. How can you make an informed ship decision between the two when your ship isnt complete.
After I compared the Deemer to the new Guardian I was actually kind of relieved.
The Deemer is actually the better Guardian!
2 SCU cargo, similar pilot weapon loadout, 6x the shields and actually similar flight performance after the buff 😅 plus the option for the turrets.
All it's missing is a better powerplant to actually support all the components properly.
It's kind of weird how good it looks next to the Guardian while looking horrible next to the Paladin...
The only way that the Redeemer trading shields and armor for speed and maneuverability makes sense is if it has the same fire power as the Paladin. Then the Redeemer could be a fast "glass cannon" or used for chasing down enemies or hunting targets. While the Paladin would be a more of a stay and fight floating tank. As it stand without the size 5 guns the Redeemer might not be able to take down targets fast enough to live long.
I honestly think there wouldn't be nearly as many complaints if they made all these other changes but kept the size 5 guns for the Redeemer.
I'm just glad other gamplay loops don't have the combat power creep issues for their ships..
I don't know if CIG is planning for the deemer to be a super heavy fighter. The modular room may fit that role a little depending on modules. I personally haven't looked into maneuverability but if it matches or exceeds heavy fighters they may be pushing that role. Question is does the game need it and will guardian players like deeper eating their boats.
I like the way they specifically say "6 s2 shields can have a benefit in regeneration over 1 s3 shield"... no they can't, type/grade for type/grade 1 s3 regens significantly faster than 6 s2 shields.
Its quad size 5, though. Not just dual.
I agree that the Redeemer's extra agility doesn't do it any good against fighters, but it does if it goes up against, say, a Paladin. It would probably actually win especially 1v1 because it can stay out of the Paladin's front firing arc. I also wouldn't discount the modularity so easily. Not everyone has 20 ships, and versatility can be great. Even if SaltEMike forgot about it, lots of people have been screaming for it.
So if CIG says agility (speed and maneuverability) wins over raw firepower and armor, then the Redeemer should win over Paladin, then.. ? We'll see about that. Also question is what kind of modular rooms Redeemer gets. I CCU'd mine, but forgot about the modularity. And what are those? Dropship module, cargo module, jails for bounty hunting?
The only way i could justify the more maneuverability would be that the Redeemer "Looks" more aero than the Paladin in Atmo. If we are talking about maneuverability and firepower per crew, the Hurricane comes to mind as a better, cheaper option. (BTW, Xian Railen was in Graybox with fully rigged animations and we still dont have it. So....)
Is the Redeemer better suited for avoiding ground turrets maybe?
CIG: oh we just sell these ships.. everything is subject to change anyway. :D
I thought they said they were focusing on RSI and MISC for the pipe line.
I'll say this again on shields.
The size shield should not just be a 0 - 100% HP pool. Damage to the shields should scale with the size weapons used against it.
A S1-2 laser repeater should do much less damage to a S3 shield than a S2 or 1 shield.
A S3 laser repeater should deal full damage to a S 1-2 shield, a little less to a S3 shield but a lot less to larger shields and so on and so on.
This creates an actual use for dynamic shields instead of just 1 large health pool.
Instead theyre making up for it with the regen rate which is kind of a janky way to solve it. A S3 ship shouldnt have to worry about a single gladius coming and just sitting in their blind spot for 5 minutes plinking you to death.
Shield regen is the way to go, they just need mods like in eve to allow faster or regen per sec. Honestly SC should copy alot of combat dynamics from eve. Lets be honest, in space you are not gonna be closer than a km or so, too many speed dynamics, this isnt atmosphere lol. Also the thought of being able to specifically target modules is laughable.
That "modular room" makes no sense for the Redeemer due to CIG messing up the interior layout. The crew quarters should have been in that dead-end on the upper deck. Now you have the beds/escape-pods in the module. So by swapping out the module you lose your entire crew quarters plus escape-pods.
CIG really needs to to an interior rework for the Redeemer and move the crew quarters to the top and then move those 4 useless seats into the modular area so that it actually has a dropship module by default. Now that the guns and shields were intentionally gimped, they should give the Redeemer it's dropship role back.
They need to do work on the Redeemer at any rate because atm it can't even fully power those 6xS2 shields!!
I think its good to have a light gunship and a heavier gunship. And since the Redeemer is quite small size wise it also made sense to make it the lighter gunship. I understand what their vision is but i also see why people complain. It will take a long while until their balancing is done and in any way will support this vision for these ships in game.
This
But then you literally just have a gunship that is not as good as the other. I understand the desire for variety and want that as well, but when the only meaningful metrics are DPS and durability, the redeemer comes up short, doubly so since it needs more players to make use of its weapons.
Already in whitebox….meanwhile a lot players waiting for other ships they are waiting for years by now, or others waiting at least for some meaningful updates on current ones….i don’t know how, but CIG always managed to disappoint me, even though I have no more expectations.
Who the **** is going to go outside to reload. THAT'S WEIRD made me laugh and nod at the same time. 😂
Normally. If you're out of ammo, go back to base.
There is a problem with comparing Bubble vs FB Vs Quadrant and just caring about max shield hp. In terms of minimum damage required to bypass the shield 1 60K quadrant shield (max S3) only has a 15k minimum get through that and if your more mobile you can start damaging the hull, where the 6 S2s on the redeemer can have 37k MAX, and a minimum of 16.5k to damage the hull.
A good pilot though will be trying to force you to shoot the less damaged shields in these cases, but hypothetically advantage should go to the redeemer in this regard too. Bets case scenario the S3 Shield ship is using 45K of its shield vs 37K of the Redeemer so although better still fairly close.
so depending on how value it the redeemer can actually have a better shield system the paladin.
Dps wise the anvil should get up to 12.5k DPS forward(full ballistic gats), with just 2 crew whereas the Redeemer can get 9k Dps Forward and 10K Total,(again all ballistic Gats) while requiring 3 for forward and 4 for the total. (Pre nerf redeemer was 11.5k forward and 13k, total)
Here It definitely goes to the paladin having a a lower crew requirement for more damage.
Interestingly though i think the redeemer can support 4 gunners and still have pilot guns while the anvil peaks at 3 gunners and missiles only for the pilot.
The gun arcs look a lot better on the redeemer and with it possible to avoid the quad S5 turret paladin could bring it back to the redeemers favor no?
Finally the redeemer looks like its a much smaller target .
I feel like the 2 ships are a lot closer to each other then many people complaining about it. albeit i hated fighting the redeemer in ERTS before the nerf (took forever to kill and had ballistics that ignore shields) so i might be a little biased.
the dirty one of the year, and i tought F7c MK2 just having size 4 under the wings instead of size 3 like the MK1 was the dirtiest they would do
from a group that plays everyday we only use pretty much the following
good fighter like F7 and F8, maybe some heavy fighters like glaives/guardian etc scorpius
but whenever we move up to bigger ships we usually go for a connie/hammerhead/polaris
there use to be a time where we would use the old redeemer to some bounties pve and pvp but it was a gamble mainly cause you could have 3 people using 1 ships with 4 s5's or literally 3 connies with 12 s5's now there is literally no reason for that all
moving fast isnt gonna keep you from getting shredded by just more enemies
why worry, the Paladin will only be the best till the next ship comes along,
In order for the Redeemer to justify it's Agility buff. It needs to be able to basically be the Fighter of all variety hunters. That's the only way it makes sense to me.
I mean I know it's not the same but the BMM is in white box (actually past that) as well lol. Just saying. (Mostly playing around but still)
You nailed it, agility is a joke in MM. Just a aim dps race.
Gunships are not meant to be maneuverable , but neither are they meant to be slouches, but steady platforms which offer supportive suppressive fire where required as part of either a defensive action or an assault action. Example: Defensive: Gunships supply cover fire while troops evacuate and retreat to drop ships to take them away from battlefield. Offensive: Gunships provide cover fire while drop ships supplying troops to assault an opening on the enemy's line. Gunships have a unique but dangerous role in any military scenario.
Apache, armed Blackhawk, Hind... Hercules 130, Osprey...attack helicopters and planes. Gunships pretty maneuverable with the exception of the large Hercules
@@Haegemon Thank you!! I did not realize that!! But the point is still the same that gunship fire is largely supportive fire which was the point I was trying to make.
A thought: don't leave PICO on any of the seats, Murphy will likely not let pilot have access to weapons. ;-)
Maybe when turret AI blades are available, go ahead, park PICO in a manned turret. ;-D
So.. no where to put additional S5 ship ammo or loot... or a fridge
One quad S5 turret
and this is how eventually all 'older' ships that don't sell anymore will be nerfed into oblivion to keep the funding going.
I melted my crucible for the paladin so I can fly it until the crucible is out. I just didn't like the valk a lot but I do like it's uses.
If the Redeemer had 4 S4 guns, if not 2 S3 and 2 S5 in pilot's hands, then, manoeuvrability "could" matter, but not afte ran all around nerf like this!
I tried to find a reason to switch an Harbinger for a Redeemer and I couldn't find any
Having variation in roles, is antithetical and diametrically opposed to mastermodes
To me a Gunship is an aircraft designed to attack air-to-ground. So, the Redeemer may find a scenario to fit based on the geography of the map. Attack helicopters are fragile so they rely on stealth and maneuverability. The Redeemer seems to be narrower, the ability to move inside a dense asteroid field or narrow canyons should be easier. The Paladin is a tank so it should go for open terrains to bring hell to the structures below.
If Roberts is using WWII as his inspiration then he'd see the allies fielded light bombers and heavy fighters as gunships.
@jrsydvl7218 He only uses WW2 for the flight model because that is what George Lucas used for StarWars
Back in the day. It's the most used by cinematography of sci-fi. Bacl to WW2, the Germans used the Stuka light bomber to atrack ground targets but that kind of plane was labeled as Tactical Bomber afterwards.
@@Haegemon True but both sides turned their engineers loose with large guns, light cannons and mounting brackets to see what they came up with. The tactical and light bomber frames allowed them to make tank and bomber busters.
of course the redeemer isnt gonna outmaneuver a gladius but a direct battle would be interesting. in the category of gunships, how does it perform against other gunships, against capital ships, its not just the one (light fighter) dimension it is supposed to loose to anyway id say :)
I don't get it so please explain, I have been outside the Star Citizen loop for a long while. I backed in 2015, but since then it's honestly their job to just finish the game.
In what way do master modes negate manoeuvrability? Balancing armour with agility has been a successful concept since the very first Wing Commander game.
Because they entirely nerfed speed & agility for all ships across the board & thus every fight is essentially a nose to nose DPS race...
5:36 I feel pretty pissed off. This ship isn't needed right now. Furthermore, my only concept ship in my fleet was debuted in 2021 thus it should be in whitebox over the Paladin.
The shields are a huge issue on the redeemer they take so much power to use that you can't use the guns at the same time...
What I don't get is why does anyone think that a "nimble" gunship is useful? That's just a heavy fighter. Gunships should be tanky, slow, and have a lot of firepower. In reality, what we have is a Constellation with much less cargo capacity and missiles, with slightly better roll.
maneuverability makes sense already. Any fight around POI's with asteroids and things to hide behind and use as cover. Enemy ship out in the open, or even behind an asteroid, you could get around it and blast them then hide behind it and zip around etc etc. Not even a hypothetical, go fight around asteroids. This is just a map design issue IMHO.
A fully crewed redeemer can easily take out a gladius. It will be harder in the paladin.
Yeah lets make the gunship weaker and faster, ooh and as a bonus, the new speed and turn rate means the gunners can never track their targets. Go dev team!
Removed all weapons from the moon - increased moons maneuverability. 🎉
1:43 gunship maneuverability. Lol. It’s a fancy way to say “we made it so light fighters can kill it”.
They killed the concept of the redeemer. The Hammerhead was the fighter interdictor. The Redeemer was the anti-large ship heavy hitter. Now? Just use a hurricane instead. Same shields. Faster, more firepower. Cheaper.
I think the problem is that CiG don’t have a clue on how to approach large ship fighting. It doesn’t matter how much weapons you stick to a row boat, it’s never going to sink a battleship. You should not be able to kill large ships with an Aurora. Period.
They should make a solo miner Drake instead, the only answer they need is: come on its Drake, if a ship exists there should be a Drake version of it according to Rule 2934. Not everyone wants to fly a pe pe. But they have to make a gunship for some reason
Yes 🙌🏼 such an underrated comment, mining ship with a size 3 laser could even repurpose the mole. They could get rid of side lasers for generators for size 3-4 laser in the front.
I agree and i am not even a miner😅 There is a large disparity in variations between industry & combat oriented ships, that was always unrealistic to me. In a lived in universe you would have way more industrial & agrar vehicles & variations of those than combat oriented ones, there are probably vastly more types of tractors, bulldozers, cranes and so on than, tank variants in service.