Danakar Endeel Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 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) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil Khan Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 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 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Painmiester Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 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. AstroJak 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VoA Posted April 28, 2017 Author Share Posted April 28, 2017 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 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil Khan Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GalYurr Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 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 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sky Captain Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil Khan Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 a normal would 12,000,000 the fuel tank I'd imagine will be 30-35,000,000. put it this way it is insane to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pharesm Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 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... GeraldEvans and Danakar Endeel 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pharesm Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 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. 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GalYurr Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pharesm Posted April 30, 2017 Share Posted April 30, 2017 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 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Painmiester Posted April 30, 2017 Share Posted April 30, 2017 Went to buy a 2nd one ,but must wait 1230 am tomarrow for the gift card to go thru the 24th wait period..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pharesm Posted April 30, 2017 Share Posted April 30, 2017 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 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Painmiester Posted April 30, 2017 Share Posted April 30, 2017 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....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil Khan Posted April 30, 2017 Share Posted April 30, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GRIZZ Posted May 11, 2018 Share Posted May 11, 2018 Leaked image likely extracted from test center builds. Spoiler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil Khan Posted May 11, 2018 Share Posted May 11, 2018 Those are the same old pics from concept. The weapons are attached. GRIZZ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VoA Posted June 10, 2018 Author Share Posted June 10, 2018 Love this image Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VoA Posted October 1, 2018 Author Share Posted October 1, 2018 Teased @GRIZZ that he forgot to post this on this thread as well as the MM thread... Quote Some BMM News is very welcome. He briefly reaffirms it has accommodations for trade deals that go on for a while, still has those "big honking guns", it's not fast due to its very large size (despite being advertised as a blockade runner). And what I found most interesting is it will have some unannounced features that the Banu Defender and the BMM "interplay" built in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VoA Posted October 5, 2018 Author Share Posted October 5, 2018 They also recently completed the long-awaited Constellation Phoenix, finishing the last few LOD tasks, and polished the conference table and piano (not literally). Once the final Phoenix bugs are worked out, they’ll move onto the Banu Defender: “We’re very excited about this and are already doing the preliminary work to ensure the visuals match everyone’s expectations.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster Terrik Posted October 6, 2018 Share Posted October 6, 2018 I wonder about how a slow ship can be a blockade runner, the only other way beside speed would be huge shields and firepower but that would make it a cheap frigate. I sense another unmet promise on the horizon where we get a lot of mini shops in the BMM (which I am not waiting for) and lose the blockade runner role (which would really piss me off). Man that is 2 disappointments in 1 week (the phoenix and the BMM), I am gonna curl up into a bundle and cry in a corner somewhere 😢😜 Pharesm 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil Khan Posted October 6, 2018 Share Posted October 6, 2018 Wrong forum? This is Banu Defender and not BMM . Booster Terrik 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pharesm Posted October 6, 2018 Share Posted October 6, 2018 2 hours ago, Booster Terrik said: I wonder about how a slow ship can be a blockade runner, the only other way beside speed would be huge shields and firepower but that would make it a cheap frigate. I sense another unmet promise on the horizon where we get a lot of mini shops in the BMM (which I am not waiting for) and lose the blockade runner role (which would really piss me off). Man that is 2 disappointments in 1 week (the phoenix and the BMM), I am gonna curl up into a bundle and cry in a corner somewhere 😢😜 Ahahah, you are right and I'll go with cheap frigate 🤣 At this point, I have 3 of them... But yeah, their (lack of) speed point cleverly slithered into that statement, while avoiding direct mention of "blockade runner". Classic CIG... Only Lando puts things straight on the table occasionally... So it seems as "obvious" as we can get it from CIG, that its a cheap Banu frigate with a lack of smaller turrets to cover itself, which has to be taken care of by the Defenders. Since these can't dock with the BMM, this 'cheap frig' will be range limited on routes without supply outposts for the defenders. Conspiracy theory - the happy meeting place of speculation, research and deduction. 😛 Booster Terrik 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster Terrik Posted October 6, 2018 Share Posted October 6, 2018 10 hours ago, Devil Khan said: Wrong forum? This is Banu Defender and not BMM . oops 😅 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now