Welcome to Star Citizen Base

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

VoA

Banu Defender

141 posts in this topic

Good to see that CIG is not going the 'forced gimbals' after all and will allow people to add a fixed S3 loadout if they so choose. That at least makes the ship more viable to HOTAS users again. :)

(I'm still sticking to my Sabre though) ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not a fighter ( with a single small fuel tank), it is an escort with 2 medium fuel tanks. These two aren't the same. The main reason with this is escorting EG MM. There are a lot of big ships yet only one capable fuel and that is the Vanguard. Some people will like it's extreme long range weapon.

 
Quote

 

How will the range and mobility of the Defender compare to other fighters?

The Banu developed the Defender to provide protection and fly alongside the Merchantman, so its design includes a much improved range over other fighters of similar size due to its fuel intakes, dual fuel tanks, and large quantum drive, as noted in the brochure.

We intend it to have an edge in mobility for a fighter of its size, due to a light hull construction and its use of Xi’An engine tech. As often happens in game design, all this mobility and range must come at a price, for this case in armor protection, so you’ll need to use that agility to your advantage.

Since it is a nimble ship where does it compare to other ships like the Sabre, Buccaneer or Khartu-al?

The Khartu-Al emphasizes mobility in general; it’s hard for most ships in its size category to compete with, especially the lightly-armed Scout variant. In terms of straight SCM or AFB speed, the Defender will edge out the Sabre. With the Buccaneer, the Defender should outperform slightly in terms of general maneuvering, but have to contend less favorably with the Buccaneer’s strong retro-thrusters and better strafing ability.

 

 

Painmiester likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like I was correct on this.... https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/50153/thread/banu-defender-cig-already-has-potential-cockpit-vi

Banu Defender - CIG already has Potential Cockpit Visibility - SOLVED

Q&A: Banu Defender -->> https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/15871-Q-A-Banu-Defender

 

Will you address the issue with cockpit visibility?
Short Answer: Yes.
Longer Answer: As we discussed on the Subscriber’s Town Hall (helpfully included down below) we’ve been looking at several solutions for the visibility issue since before the sale was announced, as indicated in this month’s Jump Point. While we’re exploring several options, none of them should majorly impact the overall look or aesthetic of the ship, but we anticipate will greatly improve pilot and co-pilot visibility. 

 

Looks like CIG is leaning towards employing the Landing Configuration per OP and per below....

 

Will the front prongs fold back during combat to offer a better view forward?
The mechanisms on the prongs offer a lot of movement flexibility, so this is certainly one of the likely avenues for improvements to the visibility we’re exploring, possibly by angling them down/outwards more.
 
 
Donut likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Painmiester said:

does that mean that the Banu has in some way , to Refuel a defender in some way, or will the 2 med size tanks cover the whole trip or route.

All ship should have refueling... hence the Starfarer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see it that way; he referenced the arm movement as a potential avenue to visibility improvements, then talked of lowering/widening them (which is fine).  This was after saying in the previous question "none of them should majorly impact the overall look or aesthetic of the ship".  To me that means they want to preserve the current shape, which fighting in landing mode does not do, imo.  It would also relegate the arm movement to being a gimmick for some sort of travel mode, which I don't like.

To me, there was a conscious decision on CIG's part to sell the ship as is, because that's the general shape they (Chris Roberts) want for the ship.  I don't think it's fair on buyers that like it (in particular the ones that didn't use credit) to expect them to be happy with such a major design/shape change just because they're not as vocal.

I want my Goteki 45, not Zoidberg... ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ

 

 

Pharesm likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the Defender's escort role, it will be interesting to see what longer range really means (marketing hype vs. reality compared to other ships).  On arm configurability, if that comes true, I hope it is a manual selection.  Not something automatic when weapons are powered up.  Best of both worlds then if the pilot gets to choose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Danakar Endeel said:

Good to see that CIG is not going the 'forced gimbals' after all and will allow people to add a fixed S3 loadout if they so choose. That at least makes the ship more viable to HOTAS users again. :)

(I'm still sticking to my Sabre though) ;)

I wish they would commit to this consistently across all ships...

 

As for the Sabre, it will be a most interesting mono-boating competition!

Looking forward to epic one-on-one battles between Sabre and Defender, hoping they will be balanced well enough to really require each pilot to use his ship's specific capabilities fully to win that duel...

 

4 hours ago, Sky Captain said:

On the Defender's escort role, it will be interesting to see what longer range really means (marketing hype vs. reality compared to other ships).  On arm configurability, if that comes true, I hope it is a manual selection.  Not something automatic when weapons are powered up.  Best of both worlds then if the pilot gets to choose.

I so wish we didn't have to constantly talk about "marketing hype vs reality" but sadly, this is exactly what CIG has stooped down to...

Its gone well beyond what anyone could call "balancing", not to mention, that the game isn't even ready for any balancing, with so many ship mechanics not working / connected yet...

I don't know how realistic this would be, or how much howling we'd get from Vanguard owners, but the Defender's job would seem to require at least as much fuel tank reach as the Vanguard...

Danakar Endeel and GeraldEvans like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, GalYurr said:

I don't see it that way; he referenced the arm movement as a potential avenue to visibility improvements, then talked of lowering/widening them (which is fine).  This was after saying in the previous question "none of them should majorly impact the overall look or aesthetic of the ship".  To me that means they want to preserve the current shape, which fighting in landing mode does not do, imo.  It would also relegate the arm movement to being a gimmick for some sort of travel mode, which I don't like.

To me, there was a conscious decision on CIG's part to sell the ship as is, because that's the general shape they (Chris Roberts) want for the ship.  I don't think it's fair on buyers that like it (in particular the ones that didn't use credit) to expect them to be happy with such a major design/shape change just because they're not as vocal.

I want my Goteki 45, not Zoidberg... ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ

CIG has promised quite a few fixes in reworks, but often failed to make any change relevant to the issue.  :P

So yeah, I don't put much stock in whatever they say until I see it.

To be fair, they DID fix the seating position in the Hornet, where your character's eyes used to be below the side window sill.  On the horizontal, from the outside, you could only see the Pilot's hair from the side before...  That got fixed the way it needed to be fixed.

The Constellation wasn't so lucky. Apparently, Chris Smith got tired of working on it, before he got around to fix either the ridiculous view from the lower turret, nor the pilot seat's position, leaving all that jutting out glass in the Constellation a dysfunctional gimmick, offering no more of a view than what a cutoff right in front of the pilot's seat with a single, vertical glass pain would have offered.

His face spoke volumes in the video segment, where he admitted it was too much for him to mess with the turret, following that up with stating that probably not all turrets should be "perfect"...

I wasn't looking for "perfect"  ...merely "not dismal" would have earned my approval :P 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have messed up some ships in the past for sure; I used to have a Vanguard with all the modules and a Retaliator ;p  I think they've learnt some lessons by now though, so hopefully it'll turn out OK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, GalYurr said:

They have messed up some ships in the past for sure; I used to have a Vanguard with all the modules and a Retaliator ;p  I think they've learnt some lessons by now though, so hopefully it'll turn out OK.

I'm not convinced that they have 'learned' in that area...  Much talk and no results - maybe they failed to fire someone who is blocking things, idk.

Otherwise, those old ships wouldn't still be messed up - several of them had more than one rework.

GeraldEvans likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Went to buy a 2nd one  ,but must wait 1230 am tomarrow for the gift card to go thru the 24th wait period.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Painmiester said:

Went to buy a 2nd one  ,but must wait 1230 am tomarrow for the gift card to go thru the 24th wait period.....

A second one of what?

(and a note, just in case...  store credits from gift cards cannot be used to purchase any warbond editions, so you should avoid gift cards, unless you know you'll use the store credits for something that's not available as a warbond edition - otherwise you'd have to pay a higher price in spite of sending CIG fresh cash...)

AstroJak likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just dropped some cash into account. Banking was messed up a bit last month.

Melted a reg 315 plus // 100$  for 2nd defender. lots of bannu pilots will want excorts. .ship rentals .

Will unmelted the MM NEXT 2 weeks when I get back to states 

It's only money.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I think the style looks very cool for an alien ship, even when landed. The S3x4 Fixed or default S2x4 Gimballed.

The difference with the Sabre is this has got extremely long range as it's an escort. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By AstroJak
       

       
      Standalone Ships                     
      ORIGINAL CONCEPT SHIPS*   (*) Concept ship with LTI unless stated otherwise.          Anniversary Sale Ships
        $45 - LTI MPUV Cargo                                                                   $75 - Hull A - 4 yr
        $45 - LTI YellowJacket                                                                   $100 - Avenger - Warlock - 4 yr
        $50 - LTI MPUV Personnel                                                              $105 - Hull B  - 4 yr
        $60 - LTI 85X                                                                               $170 - Cutlass Blue - 4 yr
        $135 - LTI Buccaneer                                                                    $375 - Orion - 4 yr
        $150 - LTI Razor                                                                          $400 - Hull D  - 4 yr
       $165 - LTI Prospector                                                                   $415 - 3 yr Conni Phoenix                 
        $190 - LTI Hurricane                                                                    $415 - 4 yr Conni Phoenix
        $210 - LTI Terrapin                 
        $225 - LTI Hull C 
        $245 - LTI Vanguard Hoplite  
        $500 - LTI Prowler
        $825 - LTI Polaris (non-warbond)
       
      All ships listed below are CCU'd unless otherwise noted and all have LTI.
      Standard CCU'd Ships with LTI                                                Rare CCU'd Ships with LTI                          
      $105 - LTI Gladius                                                                         $190 - LTI Super Hornet
      $115 - LTI Cutlass Black                                                              
      $125 - LTI Hornet                                                                         $275 - LTI Vanduul Blade
      $125 - LTI Freelancer                                                                    $295 - LTI Merchantman
      $135 - LTI Cutlass Red                                                                  $295 - LTI Retaliator Bomber
      $140 - LTI Ghost (Hornet)        
      $140 - LTI Freelancer DUR
      $155 - LTI Tracker (Hornet)
      $155 - LTI Freelancer MAX
      $165 - LTI Taurus (Conni)
      $240 - LTI Andromeda (Conni)
      $265 - LTI Redeemer
      $300 - LTI Aquila (Conni)
      (*) Concept ship with LTI unless stated otherwise.
       
      SPECIAL OFFERINGS
      3 - War Bond Polaris - $700.00 ea                                                                               

       
       
       
    • By Weehamster
      Hi everyone /
      I think it's about time that I share my collection of ship albums that I use for The Base chat that I've had for a while now
      I only have ships that are either from lore, concept, development or being re-worked, not for ships that are flyable and I do add more to the albums. Enjoy.
      Aopoa (Xi'An) | "Capital" | Nox | "Oracle" | "Transport" | Volper |
      Aegis | Idris | Javelin | Reclaimer | Retaliator (Modules) | Vanguard (Variants) |
      Anvil | A4A Hurricane | Carrack | Crucible | F7A Hornet Mk II | F8 Lightning | Terrapin |
      BIRC (Banu) | Defender | Merchantman |
      Crusader | Genesis Starliner |
      Drake | Cutlass Black (Re-Work) (Variants) | Dragonfly |
      Esperia | "Blade" | Prowler |
      Kruger | P-72 Archimedes |
      MISC | Endeavor | Freelancer (Variants) | Hull - A B C D E | Prospector | Razor | Reliant (Variants) |
      Origin | 600 | 890 Jump |
      RSI | Aurora (Re-Work) | Bengal | Constellation Aquila Mk IV (Variants) | Orion | Pegasus | Polaris  | (Ursa) |
      RSI/Aegis | Retribution |
      Vanduul | "Cleaver" | "Driller" | "Harvester" | "Hunter" | "Kingship" | "Mauler" | "Stinger" | "Void" |
      -------------------------------------------- BONUS --------------------------------------------
      Characters | Banu | Human | Tevarin | Vanduul | Xi'An | Armor & Uniforms |
      Other | Sataball | Shubin | Stanton I II III IV (Delamar) | Star Systems | Other Vanduul Art | UI |
    • By Thranir
      Anyone else here rushed to the ship upgrade tab and went with the merchantman ^^?
    • By JudasM
      For sale, CCU'd Ships
      Hornet Wildfire LTI -170 USD
      Vanguard Warden LTI- 240 USD
      Banu Merchantman LTI - 240 USD
      Verified PayPal only
    • By TheDavyJones
      Hi, as per the title, I am intending to part with my Most Favorite ship the Merchantman,

      I have 2 so I dont want to keep both, just need one.

      it is CCU'd FROM MPUV Cargo LTI

      COMPLETED OUTSIDE OF SCB , THNKS !

      I am Star Citizen Verified and Paypal Verified too and both my Star Citizen email & Paypal are the same, hopefully Buyer's too.

      Buyer has to be verified on both too.

      Image attached.