Okay so I have some points about the Starlancer max that I feel like a lot of people are missing here. This ship isn’t a dedicated hauler even though it has the moniker “Max”. The other two variants are very specialized and since they named this “base model” Max most people are missing the potential of this ship. This ship has the same appeal for me that the 400i and the Corsair had when they first launched. It’s a multi-role ship designed for long term missions. This ship could be compared to the Serenity from firefly. It’s a ship for you and your friends to live on, modify and make it a home. So many ships in this game have specific purposes. This one is to be a live aboard work horse. I loved my 400i and I melted it for the Starlancer Max. Think about it. It has a standard cargo area in the rear for vehicles, supplies, spare components and plus some personal cargo and the dedicated cargo bay for whatever you need to haul from location to location. Personal rooms that 4 players can call home. You could build an entire game play style off of living on this ship and have all your needs met. Enough firepower to defend yourself and your way of life. This ship totally gives me space frontiersman’s vibes Big love for this. Thanks CIG.
For me, I liken it to a Carrack-lite. It has everything you need minus a med bay (Nursa will fit in the rear cargo bay) and a snub hanger. Fell completely in love with it the moment it was announced.
This thing feels very much like a ‘Hero ship’, space for comfortable crew quarters, communal living area that’s big enough for the crew to interact in, a big enough cargo bay for the episode’s plot, and a pretty recognizable silhouette.
@@izackmaniac7922 I agree, the discussion for our little org while we wait for 1.0 is that we use this ship as our setting for a SC based in universe TH-cam series.
Honestly, looking at paper stats alone and 'tactical' capabilities only give you half the picture and doesn't always point the way to enjoyment. Especially if you're not part of the Min-Max community. It's not a dedicated hauler, it's a bid, deep space daily-driver for a small crew. And LODS of ships only have top mounted turrets, leaving the belly a little exposed. It's living quarters don't always have to make 100% use of every inch and cram in as much utility as possible.Sometimes, you just want something that feels like it's from a cool sci-fi movie, you own personal 'hero ship'.... something to have fun in, to look out those cool windows and enjoy SC's awesome vistas in. This is why I added this to my fleet, simply because I like the looks of it.
@@Ryecrash617your not wrong that’s 100% why i have the carrack. Shape wise in its concept carrack takes it especially with its parasite shuttle. But layout and size i think the max is closer
Multiple drop down holds is awesome and why I upgraded. I am typically chaining 5-6 delivery missions. General 3-4 drop offs and 1-2 pickups. Keeping drop off order and not blocking cargo extraction with your pickups is hard to manage. Having two distinct drop down bays will make my life MUCH easier in the local delivery cargo game.
Speaking of the ventral blindspot. It would be really nice if we were able to send control of the cheek turrets to the copilot and have the copilot aim the turrets down.
I’m gonna be honest. I didn’t think twice about upgrading my Taurus to this. I also have the Zeus CL. And if the Taurus ever gets a report. Might upgrade to that again. But for now. This ship is going to do exactly what I want. Enough cargo to make money. Separate areas for separate jobs. Loading the Medical Ursa. Crew capable. Exploring. All the things. I thought the Galaxy was going to be the ship for me, but the more I look at it, this is the ship for me
@@MurderousNoiseI am sure I read somewhere that the prices had a bug in the calculation and they are not meant to be this expensive? Could be wrong though!
@@MurderousNoise if you can't make money with cargo on one ship due to fuel cost, you can't do it on any ship due to fuel costs..... so that's going to change for sure. but yes, 224 SCU is going to make money just fine, however, it appears at CitCon, that mining and salvaging is going to be tops for money making....
@@MurderousNoise if they kept those prices for new players on their starter ships with their 20k uaec would net them an hr of gameplay before being bankrupt and unable to fly/play the game.
Some good insights, thanks! One thing a good hauler needs these days is tractor beams. Unfortunately that is one thing the SL Max lacks. The Taurus is probably the best in its class medium hauler, not only for its cargo space but the tractor beam turret that makes loading so much easier. The MAX and C2 lack tractor beams and instead rely on painfully slow hand beams or the buggy and imprecise ATLS. I feel like the MAX should keep the turret hard point from the TAC but make them into tractor beams. The C2 could also retain the nose turret from the M2 and use it for a tractor beam. And maybe add one to the rear as well.
@@BuzZzKiller Speaking of the Taurus, how much cargo can it hold in only 8scu crates from cargo contracts? That would be a purchase consideration between these two ships I think.
@@N0V-A42 It's either 12 or 14 8 scu boxes. I know it holds 2 32's (8x8scu boxes) and some more behind them but can't remember if it's 2x16 or 2x24. It's cargo grid is 3 scu tall so an 8 with a 1, 2, or 4 on top of it..
@@N0V-A42 Taurus isn't a direct competitor to the SL MAX. I just used it as an example of a cargo ship done right. The MAX is closer to a 600i or Retaliator in size, and its the only cargo dedicated ship in that size class. It sits right between the Taurus and C2. To answer your question though: The Taurus suffers from the same problem as most medium cargo ships right now: its cargo bay is only 3 SCU tall. But with its 14x4x3 grid it can still carry 14x 8 SCU containers with room for 14 more 4 SCU containers on top of them. Which is more than enough to handle any medium cargo hauling contract below experienced level. We don't know the actual dimensions of the SL Max's grids. But with an overall capacity of 224, it will likely be able to carry anywhere between 2-6 more 8 SCU containers than the Taurus.
@@N0V-A42 From what we can see, I think the Starlancer may, like the RAFT and C1, be able to carry any combination of crates that add up to its maximum load. As soon as Hauiing contracts arrived with their fondness for 8scu crates I realised how important it was that the cargo bay be sized as multiples of 8SCU. Suddenly my MSR was only able to carry 72scu and the FL Max could only carry 64 while my RAFT was fine with all 96scu and even the C1 could quickly load and carry that if you go off-grid. I was looking forward to buying a Zeus until I tried one for a week and saw how hard (and frustrating) it was to load more than 72scu into it.
I think this is the natural step up from my taurus. The effective cargo space (8scu boxes) is much larger than the taurus. It also can be a titanfall ship with atls mechs which is fun if not unintended.
The problem is that it has the same shields as the Taurus while beeing larger. And less pilot controlled firepower. And i think there is no tractor turret mentioned. I think the max isn*t a step up. It's an alternative to the Taurus. You want a better combat ship, expesially played solo, the Taurus is the better choice. You don't want to fight or often play with your group, the Max is better suited for you.
@@AK-lo4bd Yes. You can fly the Taurus Solo. I think it is a solo capable as the Zeus or Freelancer. All these ships are to slow and sluggish to fight a group of player pirates. But against bad players or solo pirates you can win a fight. And if you don't have to fight there is no problem to use the ship solo.
Easiest upgrade I have ever made and it was from a Taurus as I was just looking for any reason to get rid of it. Functionality wise, the Taurus was just too perfect. Aesthetic wise, it was just too old and the interior is ugly. The Starlancer MAX is basically everything I wanted to in a replacement for it. Plus with a Nursa, I can have the respawn and medical capabilities of a TAC while still having the cargo of a MAX. I know many don't like it but I love the freelancer/MISC cockpit style and extended dashboard, I'm looking forward to the Starlancer.
@@Aeternum_Gaming This is wrong. CIG never nerved every new ship. Or where is the nerf for the vulture, the Piscies R, the Hull A, the Raft, C1, ........ So please stop writing lies.
I prefer a more combat orientated solo usable ship. So i will keep the Taurus. Max also seems to have no tractor. And it has the same shields while beeing a much larger target. The Starlancer is a nice ship, but no replace for the Taurus for me. And sooner or later the Connie will get an update on it's internals.
@@vonrosphe3098 same shields as the Taurus being 600i sized was a weird design choice tbh especially since every other ship in this category has 2 s3+ must've been a design oversight tbh
Honestly, at 224 SCU, you're paying more for the amenities and such compared to the Freelancer Max than anything. I personally am looking forward more towards the BLD.
Keep in mind that doesn't include the Ursa garage. The real usable cargo capacity will probably be closer to 300. That being said we don't know how viable it will be in the future to haul cargo that isn't on the grid
@@MrClassytangerine Speaking of off grid cargo I wonder if the area being meant for a ground vehicle and not just walkway would mean anything for that off grid cargo considering you don't want a ground vehicle bouncing around during maneuvers just as much as you don't want cargo bouncing around.
@@alegsb3943The rear cargo hold/garage has designated cargo areas on the side for cargo leaving the middle empty for a ground vehicle. We shouldn't lose any cargo capacity when bringing a ground vehicle.
@@N0V-A42 yeah I think all vehicle areas so far are also a cargo grid so I think it's a good chance that will be the case. I'm betting they just don't include it in the cargo specs because they want having a rover to not affect cargo capacity as a feature
I drove the “free” freelancer for a long time since it’s very versatile and I want something other than the cutty, I end up getting hooked to MISC ships and I instantly upgraded my Railen to Starlancer. The Taurus loaner is perfect for its role like others said, but aesthetics wise I much preferred the Starlancer.
The Taurus loner?? Upgraded my Zeus CL to this and got a loner of a freelancer max ?? Unless they have changed it in the last day , personally would prefer a loner Taurus 👍👍
@@timjeffrey764 Yeah they are giving you a freelancer Max for a loaner while the Railen they gave you a Taurus and a syulen for loaner. Yeah the Railen is a good deal for loaners but man I am hooked to the MISC new ship aesthetics and I can’t wait to play it out in end of this year 😛
This is the niche I was looking to be filled. My Taurus isnt quite enough capacity. I am keen on adding the BLD too, despite having a Pioneer and Galaxy already. If they offered a DUR version, i'd be delighted.
If you plan on a lot of zero-g cargo loading in deep space, the MAX doesn't shine there. I love the MAX (I'm getting one, it's the Freelancer I always wanted); however, I'm keeping the Taurus for those kinds of jobs. If you do dump your Taurus, the Zeus CL or C1 Spirit could fill that niche if you feel you want to retain the capability to do that work efficiently.
@@JL-rj9fl Good point. The Starlancer probably can do zero-G loading with a ATLS in the rear and a maxlift handheld on the catwalk midship but that's a suboptimal solution. The Taurus has the turret so while zero-g loading can be done on SL MAX, it can be done better on the Taurus.
@@JL-rj9fl I dont plan on zero-g at all. Never done it yet, dont intend to start! The Taurus is going because 174scu cant compete against 224 scu. The Zeus CL is even worse than the Taurus and the C1 is "starter" level for cargo, like a Cutlass. I already have an extensive hanger so this is an upgrade of my refined material hauler from all my mining activities.
@@N0V-A42 Yeah, I really like how logistics is coming along in SC. The fact that we have to look at different designs and make these decisions of what to use for what job (among the same class of ship) is one of my favorite parts about SC. So many ships with pros and cons for their use case(s).
I like it! It won't be for everyone, but for some, it is something that will serve it's purpose well in the verse. I'm a solo player, but have been looking for a medium sized exploring ship that I can stock up and live in whilst venturing in game.
They said x8 size 4s, 224scu and full 4-man crew cabin amenities and I responded with a menacing look toward my trusty Connie Taurus, a side-eye that was signaling that it is likely going to retirement home soon. I bought my Warbond CCU from my Taurus to the Starlancer MAX, now I just wait for it to release, find someone to let me test it out a bit and if all is well, hit "APPLY". The ONLY downside I see immediately is the standard MISC "kitchen table" sized cockpit.
I am a Drake fan and have always hated the Freelancers but I am actually replacing my Corsair with a Starlancer Max. It does everything the Corsair does same or better. Better cabins, better cargo, same range, same Nav speed. You might argue that the Corsair has two side turrets as well as a remote turret while the MAX only has two remotes being handled by a single gunner but in my experience the side turrets are almost useless with their poor firing arc and only able to shoot at enemies as they zip past too fast to aim at. Also, the Corsairs turret gunner is having to handle the lower front guns at the same time and those only have a 30 degree arc.
Im a drake fan but also a misc fan so it was a no brainer for me. Honestly all the corsair would have to do for me is have a bigger cargo capacity and i wouldve never upgraded.
@@flamebreaker7318 I daily the Corsair/600i often. I like the feel of a slower ship with some weight to it. If I need to faster ship usually the cutlass never lets me down.
Of the opinion this should have just been called the Starlancer, and had a max variant with even more cargo space at the cost of manoeuvrability (and/or firepower), so it competed better against the likes of the C2 which it's starting to approach in size. Then again, viewing it as less than double the SCU of a Freelancer Max isn't entirely fair, when it has dedicated spots for vehicles and engineering, and will be a lot less cramped than the freelancers in that regard. It will probably still have the 600i beat for some notions of practicality and space efficiency. It looks like it will be quick to pop cargo in and out from that center area, and it may indeed be nice for group gameplay/roleplay... we'll see.
@@Nemoticon The Freelancer has more cargo then the DUR and MIS. That's their point. The base Freelancer has no moniker, why does the base Starlancer have the moniker MAX?
@@N0V-A42 Because the variants of ships NOW have a tendancy to have individual monikers, like the Zeus and the Apollo. It's not like the old ships didn't have these either, MISC have seperate monikers for the Reliant series too. It's not that big of a deal either, point being... is the ship to your liking? If not, no problem, there are hundreds of other ships to choose from. It really is a minor thing you're getting stuck on.
We really need to know the size of the cargo grids. If this thing can be filled up with 7 32-SCU boxes, then it becomes a much better hauler. Fast loading without playing tetris is important. I'd also like to know how much cargo space is lost loading a URSA in the back. If you only lose 24 SCU or something, then you could drop in a NURSA and still haul 200 units of cargo which would be far superior to anything less than C2.
There's a Star Citizen subreddit post titled "Starlancer series cargo grids guesses. Feel free to drop any ideas." that appears to have a pretty good prediction of what the cargo grid will look like in each variant. The MAX appears to have two 2•16•2 cargo grids on the midship drop-down cargo hold and two 2•8•3 cargo grids on the sides of the rear ramped cargo hold/garage area. It looks like we won't lose any cargo to ground vehicles unless you start bringing multiple and park them on the cargo grid. That also works in reverse and we might be able to get an additional 4•8•3 block of cargo in between the two side cargo grids in the rear hold for a total of 320scu with 96scu off-grid.
@@Macskinny76 No, that's wrong... the drop platform holds 128 SCU that'll be 4 X 32 Cargo Containers and in the back it has 96 SCU of cargospace and that would be 4 X 24 Crago Containers
I agree that I would like to see the top-mid turret on the bottom, front or rear, to compliment the top rear turret's coverage. I actually see this ship as a step up from the Connie Taurus, with a similar crew complement, but better components, 33% more cargo space, room for a vehicle without losing all your room for cargo, and weapons coverage to the rear. The rear vehicle bay can house a Nursa for spawning to, the turrets both up top give good coverage when landed while using this ship as a mobile base, and you have plenty of capacity for cargo of all sorts - shipments, found loot, basic needs.
The turrets are in great places to defend the ship when it is on the ground loading and unloading, or just off-grid living. I bought the Taurus in concept for $150. Melted it when the Constellations were in a bad place and weren't updated. Bought it back a couple patches back when it was better. Upgraded to the Starlancer Max because of the extra cargo and MUCH better live-aboard capabilities. For the extra $25 for to get the War bond, I'm into this for $175. I'm thinking it will be closer to $300 at launch. Great way to save a good bit for further upgrades...like maybe the BLD - Building variant... IF I don't like it. Edit: Obviously haven't tried it, but the ramp between the mid-cargo bays seems a good spot for an ATLS if it fits... (missed that location in this video)
I love the Starlancer Max, been flying it exclusively since it was released. Doing hauling missions and Save Stanton missions. It’s just a fun ship. My only wish, would be the entire back area have a cargo grid, not just on the sides, if I’m hauling, I’m not having a vehicle in there
Yup this is much more of a "home away from home that can carry cargo" than a dedicated cargo ship - if you want pure cargo, there are better options. It is very strange that this ship has no front bow ramp, given there seems to be no real reason to not have one, and as much as the catwalk through the cargo bay is cute, with a full deck above it there really is no reason this could not have simply been a full width cargo lift, which would have significantly improved its payload. Further, it means that you can never put a vehicle in the front bay, even if you could get it under the hull. Four giant rooms rather than something useful like a repair shop? Very strange design choices which honestly feel like the Max was deliberately nerfed from what could have been a fantastic Serenity clone, into a ship with bad defensive coverage, awful letterbox view, and tiny windows so you can't even enjoy the increasingly beautiful game from inside what is, fundamentally, a touring ship with some extra cargo space. And don't be fooled - big turrets mean nothing without the firing arc, this big bird (and the combat one) are done if anyone attacks from below and astern. The turrets on the Tali base at $100 less make more sense if you are thinking about actually using the guns - they have far better coverage. I still really like this ship ... but don't be fooled into thinking it will be more than a big, slow, easy to hit target.
I would put this at around the same level as the Constellation Phoenix, especially with the bar and the pool table in there. It can carry more cargo and vehicles, however. And the side loading looks interesting. It'll be interesting to see how it flies and whether it can be solo'ed effectively.
The max was definitely Misc designers going "we should probably see a cargo version of the bld because we can manufature them to order without retooling the production line" just a variant for someone who wants it.
I bought one, but more as a stepping stone for the Starlancer BLD. The BLD will almost certainly be more and as a stepping stone it is a good jump with only 5 investment in a terrapin which will get a warbond sale by IAE.
I have an upgrade token from my Andromeda to this sitting in my hangar, waiting for IAE to try it out and see if I actually like it. I like cargo mission and wanted something between the 128~ of the Zeus, Taurus, and MSR, but don't know if I'll need as much space as C2 offers right off the hop. It feels like the perfect sweet spot for me. I also love that we get a rear cargo space, as well as the two side bays, so if you are dropping off cargo to a less than ideal location you can strategically place cargo and drop off the side easily. And while it's not meant as a dropship, I feel like it'll be good for dropping a vehicle and crew easily from those spots and taking off, without sacrificing cargo space like the TAC does.
As i already mentioned in your TAC video, i found the bld and max very interesting. i would have liked to buy them both in duplicate. as a construction drone ship for basebuilding in the future, i'm sure it would be a great thing. however, i would not upgrade my taurus for this. and those who plan to do so, buy the upgrade and wait until the standalone has tested how good the ship actually is and then decide. I like the look, of course it echoes in your head “i have enough cargo ships that i don't really need” but i still bought it. it won't replace the solo firepower of a taurus and its practical tractor beam. it doesn't have to be the misc answer to the conni, just bigger and different! i will buy the bld, the tac probably won't for the time being.
Taurus can’t even compare to Starlancer Max… for what it offers in multiple categories. For own you put a URSA you lose all your cargo holding power. Max has 128 SCU drop down while 96 in the garage. Also Connie’s are so outdated I rather own a Freelancer over any Connie.
@@XxTRUEPINOYxX14 the connie is certainly outdated, and simply a legend, but it has completed hundreds of thousands of flying hours with many citizens and has proven itself in everything. The max is not even out and has to prove itself first! That's why the connies have no competition to fear. I would never give mine away, I'd rather tip my corsair into the melt. If you load a URSA into the Andromeda, yes, there are still 12 SCU free, about 60 SCU with the Taurus. You can compare them very well, because they are very much aimed at the same crew of four. We'll see what she's like in the end, I'm looking forward to flying this Starlancer whale. Freelancer against a conni, never, knocking conni off the throne is pretty much impossible so far, especially since the corsair nerf. I currently have freelancer max as a loamer and find it terribly bad.
This seems to ironically be the Cutlass's next step up as far as "easy to hop on with a friend or two or three and go do things together" ship. Haul cargo, run planetside missions, NPC bounties, etc. If living space/amenities end up mattering to sustain time out away from a town or station, then it also covers that. It's like a Misc take on the Constellation. I'd still take a Taurus over this for pure "internal cargo hauling" gameplay, but I think cargo space for the hybrid haulers like the Zeus CL, C2, Caterpillar, Taurus, and so forth will end up being used for utility rather than hyper-efficient space trucker loops. Holding materials intended to be used out in the field like metal for repairs, a couple of small ground vehicles, armor kits and weapons, food and water, and so forth. People see "cargo space" and think cargo. Think more along the lines of what you'd put in the back of a Suburban and not what you'd put in the back of an 18-wheeler.
That lowering cargo is nice. Also seems to basically be the only feature. Drip fed even. Gonna be interesting to see the next couple years of ships. In the medium-large class especially. Not sure three crew elevators are necessary but, Misc uses space a bit different I guess. Just surprised a whole class barely gets 100 more scu over Freelancer Max. For four crew. Those cutaway shots are nice.
I would say the Railen and tarsus are it’s competitors seeing how it it’s in the middle of them, trade off being it’s a big boi compared to both of them but more firepower than the other two if fully crewed as well
I purchased a $75 warbond CCU for my Freelancer MAX to the Starlancer MAX. My Freelancer MAX was part of a ship bundle that included the MISC Expanse (even though I hate the Expanse - long story), but if I didn’t own the Freelancer already, I’d probably pass on the Starlancer. My reasoning for upgrading to the Starlancer is that NEWER IS ALWAYS BETTER with Star Citizen’s ships. I’ve never liked the base Freelancer’s exterior or interior design, but I did like the MAX’s chunky, utilitarian aesthetic. The Starlancer is a more refined and up-to-date design, whereas it could be YEARS before CIG updates the Freelancer series. With double the cargo capacity, strong defensive capabilities, and all the amenities packed into the Starlancer, it seemed extremely reasonable for only an extra $75. The Freelancer MAX is a ship I would always solo because its rear turret is a joke. I’d rather risk getting raided than split my profits with a useless tail-gunner. Whereas the Starlancer MAX is a ship I would actually multi-crew. Also, the Starlancer MAX fills a gap in my transport ship collection in the ~250 SCU range, between my Argo RAFT and Caterpillar. Admittedly, I haven’t applied the CCU yet because I’m waiting for the Starlancer to be flyable. As a Subscriber, I should receive a loaner Starlancer, which I’ll test fly it to see how I like it.
I think it's a good ship for people who want something bigger than an andromeda, but don't want to go all the way to an oddysey, I think it's a good all-rounder comparable to a 600i explorer for people who don't want to go all out. Although considering the size I'd say it's probably for people who are expecting to play with friends / as part of an org a lot and not for single people due to the engineering work such a large ship brings with it.
Its not a new design. If you look at all other manufacturers and even MISC every shipclass is pretty unique apart from the Hull series which really do just scale up. Same here, this is just a bigger variant of the Freelancer. A little bit smaller and it would have been the Freelancer MK 2. And that was most likely their intention. I doubt this was planned as a new ship but rather a Freelancer replacement. Its extremely obvious. It has the exact same silhouette along with the semingly rotating main engines mounted on rings, but obviously they won't rotate. Its a holdover from the very first Freelancer design. Even the upper front turret is basically just replacing the Freelancer airlock. And it has the same weird wings on the engines. Yet even the Freelancer is not noticeably better because of its wings than a Connie. And the Starlancer will be even less manouverable, otherwise it would be crazy if the Starlancer as twice the size of a Freelancer flies almost the same. That would be like spitting in the faces of all Freelancer pilots.
I'm assuming its a maneuverable and armored hauler, unlike the Hull-series of ships, and the lack of ventral turrets is minimal as the pilot can probably keep the nose on point for larger fighters and can probably shrug off light fighters. That being said, I don't see the advantage over the Constellation-series of ships unless I'm correct about the Starlancer being armored.
Like the shape of the ship as most Misc ships appeal to me. Depending on the future of the Corsair and pilot controlled weapons I might swap the Corsair for the Starlancer Max
Hey is there a problem with the freelancer max ladders, have it as my loner and I cannot figure out how to get out of the ship using the ladder as the door doesn’t open 😢
id say it is definitely a Taurus competitor. It costs a bit more, has a bit more cargo and a bit more firepower. Cargo capacity per dollar are pretty similar... So yh, definitely a Taurus competitor. Edit: I have to disagree with you. Even though I don't like MISC and would never buy a ship from them, this one here is the big brother from the Taurus, one of the best and most liked ship I've seen in the game rn. So I don't think they missed the spot with it at all.
@@Parzival117kinda. If you want to have more fighting power then Taurus. If you want more cargo I’d still say Starlancer, but again, they are very close
I have both Odyssey and a Starlancer. My idea is to probably upgrade max to the builder when it comes. Unless i melt it and buy vehicles i can use in my Odyssey. Still unsure what ship to have inside it. I have 2 Atls and 1 CSV-sm. Probably want a Ursa Rover for expeditions
Just made the upgrade from the Andromeda to this because it's more of a space house and since the TAC isn't hitting until next year, this will suit me fine for now. I loved the firepower of the Andro but the insides I hated! The Starlancer series seems to allow more options for space living and stuff I want to do...now if the handling is on par with the connie then that will be fine for combat too. I'm used to that coming from the Connies/Corsair/Redeemer/Reclaimer all solo'd. This also might be a good mothership option (until AI blades come) as bigger ships like the Polaris etc aren't as solo friendly.
@@DapperGordy Having just flown one on the PTU, I couldn't get a bounty mission working to test the MAX yet. But ofc the connie will out dps the max (4/S5 vs the max 4/S4). Just the Max insides and fun-ctionality are amazing! The 2 cargo areas just feel better! And she flies surprisingly well!
While I've already purchased the Starlancer MAX via CCU chain, I'm hoping the BLD will be accessible with one more upgrade because that's my ultimate goal. Consequently, I've already got a Freelancer DUR, an Odyssey, and an Endeavor (and a slew of other ships).
IMHO it's a slightly less pragmatic Connie Taurus with better interior and assets because it's new. I got the 5 USD upgrade from the Terrapin but will probably upscale for the base builder version later.
I really like the way the cargo can be loaded onto elevators to either side of a catwalk. Living space is nice too. Imo the gun selection is a mistake. I’d rather fewer turrets that are size threes but with really good coverage than those armor piercing behemoths that are better suited to taking out larger ships but it is what it is. Also it requires a ton of crew. TBH, for that much crew I’d want a larger hold. As to the other one…. One size fits all gunship? Uh, not sure how well that will fit but sure. Let’s see it when it comes out. Now that even the medium crew ships basically useless for solo players I’m curious about the whole direction of the game.
@@zmortis111 the oddysey is way too big and the dur is way too small. The oddysey is a 8+ player ship. The dur is a 2 player one (realistically... no one wants 4 people in a dur)
Having done some hauling in the MAX I feel like the experience kind of sucks without crew. It's got worse angles for the cargo bays, and the travel from the ground to the cockpit is significantly longer. The back bay seems to be the easiest to load but as mentioned there is a bunch of space consumed by the vehicle area which lacks a cargo grid. The central bay is all cargo grid but has the awkward walkway in the middle consuming a large amount of space and complicating loading. An ATLS also does not fit well into the central cargo bay as a result of the walkway. Overall, the Starlancer MAX has me looking forward to the gold standard pass of the Freelancer MAX which I enjoy using a bit more when it comes to solo hauling. Oddly enough though the Starlancer MAX currently flies better than the Freelancer MAX. (Patch 3.24.3)
Every ship can be soloed. But the smaller the crew you have the less effective the ship is going to be. And you have to ask yourself, how much loss are you willing to take and still consider this ship to be what you want it to be? When it comes to the MAX and the TAC it seems like all you're going to lose is its combat abilities. If you could live with that than I'd say go with your instincts and stick with this ship. If not you should look into getting something from the hull series. Those ships need a lot less people to run them and they can haul a lot of cargo for their size.
@@lawofthewestgaming Danke für ihre Antwort. Ich habe mir gerade die Connie Taurus angesehen diese gefällt mir auch sehr. Es ist schwer etwas zu finden :)
I don't thinknthebdesign is flawed with the blindspots, you have to remember major cargo haulers will mote then likely have escorts to help with defense
I want to love this ship but I don't see the point of it. The whole back should be full cargo grid and the retarded walkway shouldn't be there so there can be more cargo. I like the suggestion that some have of this being a base model with a MAX version being reserved to compete in cargo size with the catepillar or almost that much. This is the jack of all trades master of none category, but MAX makes it tagged as cargo. This wastes an obnoxious amount of cargo space for other things. This isn't a cargo ship, it's an all purpose ship mistakenly labelled as MAX imo.
So I bought the Starlancer MAX but since it releases next patch and I play on the LIVE one I got a Freelancer Max so I should get it when 3.24.3 drops right? 🤔 Edit: i just read up about "loaners" im quite new to the game
Yup, you'll get the Starlancer MAX once .3 drops November 22nd. I can't wait. I hate that we get the Freelancer MAX as a loaner tho. It needs a rework badly.
They should inceease its scu cap to more or less 300 cause I feel 224 is quite lacking for its price and size. And those turret placements are horrible they should optimize turret coverage to promote team work. I mean who would enjoy going into groups and for you to only end up on the turret that couldn't engage in the fun. Trust me, I used to go along with org mates to crew up big ships and many of us stopped going, cause of said reason.
If you don’t own a large cargo ship already and only the standard medium cargo Zeus c1 freelancer etc then this is actually a no brainer. Also will probably be a good ship to run ert/vaughns in because of the firepower it has as well as its cargo capacity. Just an opinion though
I like the amount of cargo and the interior amenities but I don't like MISC's aesthetics and it seems like you'll need to load cargo from three different entrances which works if you have multiple people loading cargo but loading solo will be unnecessarily cumbersome.
Originally loved my Freelancer Max but because pushed away over time. Zeus CL wins as my favorite Medium Cargo hauler. Starlancer Max wins at my favorite larger cargo hauler.
the only reason this ship has any value in my opinion is because it is a direct brand upgrade from the freelancer so if you are partial to the brand and the look i see value in that alone.
There's a lot of wasted space in the top deck. They could have moved the armory upstairs and then used that space for more cargo on the lower deck. My biggest gripe though ... it is SO SLOW. The thing can barely outrun a Reclaimer. Most other large ships are much heavier and yet somehow much faster than the Starlancer.
Why would you want un upgrade to the Freelancer max, the size of a 600i, but only carries 224 scu? This is no competitor to the Hull Series, the Hull C carrying 2400 scu+ IF you want prtoctection , get the Ironclad or Ironclad assault with 5-6 times the cargo.
The $$$ cost is insanely different bro. Hull C is for safe hauling....meaning not the most lucrative routes unless youre also willing to pay for someone to babysit you for hours.
lol dude that's well known fact since the beginning, when the devs admitted that the upper wing on the Freelancer is purposely there to block the turret's field of fire
It was a 5$ upgrade over a terrapin, so I got one anyway, but the ship is the usual "Rule of cool" design, made by "Artists" with no clue about Funtion-to-form hierarchy (I'm an Architect 🤦♂️) The double turrets on top, limited to180° FOW by the impeding junk in the middle, speaks volumes, when nothing else covers the belly and the rear of the ship's hull. The central cargo bay also is brainless, difficult to load up from both sides due to an unnecessary catwalk in the middle, and the huge mess hallway in the top-middle is a sinfull waste of space, with the afterward 4 large bedrooms that cant even fill all the space they free up with the decision to kill a usefull hangar bay because "REASONS". I'm pretty suere I won't stick with the ship, looking at it as a CCU chain link to something else.
Mmmm I’ve decided I don’t think this really fits what I want, I am happy with my Taurus and seeing the Zeus I am looking forward to the rework for the Connie (whenever that is) and I also have an ironclad assault as well. This does fit in between but nothing my Taurus can’t handle
That's not great that the 228scu comprises of the 96scu in the back. If i had more than 128 then would have to load the back, which breaks the flow of loading and unloading, and constitutes little gain over the Taurus imo, if any I would have rathered less crew recreation and more scu
I have the same instincts about the ship. I sorta like it but ultimately I've decided I don't want it. I think I want the Galaxy. But I'm not sure it's part of the list of ships they are working for the next 12 months.
Everyone compares it to the 600i but it's also nearly the size of a C2 which holds a LOT more cargo. I think I like this better, but just saying it's in that size class.
@@secretweapon7764 I'm not talking about cost, just sized. Everyone is like "That makes it 600i size". Well it also makes it C2 size. That's a BIG ship. Much larger than I realized until I looked closer.
Too late. Melted 2 ships and some paints for credits, bought the Zeus CL warbond upgrade from the Prospector and the Starlancer Max warbond upgrade from the Terrapin for $5 each. $10 for a $40 upgrade is not too shabby.
honestly I don't really see the point of the Starlancer MAX, a RSI Galaxy is in the same large category and can transport 400 SCU whil a C2 Hercules can almost take 700
@@N0V-A42 the Starlancer feels like a lesser version of other ships. The cargo is sub optimal to other cargo ships its size and the rear turret has an intentionally built in restriction that keeps it from firing forward. Things like the latter are poor design choices they seem to include so that the ship can't function too well in combat by adding things that don't need to be there. I do like the three access options and the living quarters are nice, but the ability to function in its main roll is not as well thought out as other cargo haulers. It's just okay. The Galaxy feels like a better version of this ship and is modular.
@@N0V-A42 I may have to eat my words. How that CIG is stating the Galaxy won't have a base building module. Unbelievable. So there may be strong consideration for the Starlancer after all.
You're comparing the Starlancer to the Hull C? Really? I mean pricepoint sure, but the Hull is way more bang for buck right now. Unless they start modeling custom critical type cargo where it needs to be taken directly from surface to surface in a hurry and they pay a huge premium for it.
As I understand the planned cargo hauling game, large bulk cargo (Hull C, D, E class) is almost always going to be space station to space station. The exception on the smaller end of the scale is vehicle ground to ground delivery with the Crusader Hercules. I could see some exceptions like planet side bases with docking ports.
The Starlancer MAX seems like an potentially interesting ship (although all that "Deep Space" nonsense is just marketing BS imo). That TAC variant however shows how CIG intentionally gutted the Redeemer just to push the TAC variant a week later at the same price which now has everything the Redeemer had plus dropseats and even a medbay. The Redeemer now just has nothing going for it anymore.
Eh I wouldn't draw too much a comparison between the 2. Redeemer is absolutely TINY compared to this beefchonk of misc metal. I believe redeemer was released way outside it's original "hind helicopter in space" idea. No way a ship like that with 3 crew should have ever threatened a hammerhead or larger ships the way it did.
@@schlagzahne6741 this 100%, the Starlancer is only about 7-9 meters shorter than the 600i and is the same size in the other two dimensions. The Starlancers are both much larger than the redeemer. here are the percentages. Length Increase: ~62.75% Width Increase: 108% Height Increase: ~14.29%
@@DanakarEndeel they gutted the 400i and the corsair as well. I was so mad about the 400i need I melted it for a Starlancer Max. I get that they are doing it for balance reasons because CIG will be doing a big component rework. One selling point for the 400i for me was that it had three power plants. A component which was planned to have sub components. Which left a lot of room for modifications and tuning. With the big engineering push it was my home that sub-components would reemerge and give the 400i a whole different level of possibilities with ship component modification. Then to just need it down to a single power plant I was so disappointed. So I bought a Max about it.
I wouldn't be too worried. By the looks of what we've seen the TAC seems to be geared towards a sort of mobile troop base, being able to quickly deploy and receive troops and smaller vehicles and provide cover for ground units in combat situations
@@schlagzahne6741 Uhm, did you forget the Perseus which also just needs a crew of 3-4? Besides, I stand by what I said. They gutted the Redeemer just to offer up this 'Super Redeemer' with the same stuff the original Redeemer had plus more. I still remember how much of a stink CIG made over the Redeemer being a gunship with the ability to carry some marines and decided to make it a pure gunship. Now it's nothing anymore because 2xS4 guns on a turret are just defense turrets. For it to be viable it needs at least quad-guns on the two manned turrets (similar to other attack ships like the Hurricane/Scorpius/Hammerhead).
When ships come out of concept their prices increase, also discounts applied, so I dont expect warbond will cost less than it cost now. Look at zeus, with discount it has same price when it was in concept. In the end you pay the same. Or I miss something?
If you sit back and look at the dimensions, it's almost the length of the Polaris, just 10 meters short. Of course, correct me if I'm wrong on that, but even with the blind side underbelly, you can take a hit and keep on going. This isn't a small ship where it'll drop from one shot, granted loosing an engine would be the most down side to this ship, and others have down played the flying of the ship due to atmo flying and handling. I think CIG fixed this problem, even the Connie's had it bad when it came to atmo flight, and yes; I'll agree that there should've been a tractor beam on the ship, but the Atlas can make things much faster with it's range and weight carrying increase.
Okay so I have some points about the Starlancer max that I feel like a lot of people are missing here. This ship isn’t a dedicated hauler even though it has the moniker “Max”. The other two variants are very specialized and since they named this “base model” Max most people are missing the potential of this ship. This ship has the same appeal for me that the 400i and the Corsair had when they first launched. It’s a multi-role ship designed for long term missions. This ship could be compared to the Serenity from firefly. It’s a ship for you and your friends to live on, modify and make it a home. So many ships in this game have specific purposes. This one is to be a live aboard work horse.
I loved my 400i and I melted it for the Starlancer Max. Think about it. It has a standard cargo area in the rear for vehicles, supplies, spare components and plus some personal cargo and the dedicated cargo bay for whatever you need to haul from location to location.
Personal rooms that 4 players can call home. You could build an entire game play style off of living on this ship and have all your needs met. Enough firepower to defend yourself and your way of life. This ship totally gives me space frontiersman’s vibes
Big love for this. Thanks CIG.
This sums it up perfectly
This guy Maxes
I gave up my taurus for this thing and 90% of why I did it was because of how much more “habitable” the starlancer is
For me, I liken it to a Carrack-lite. It has everything you need minus a med bay (Nursa will fit in the rear cargo bay) and a snub hanger. Fell completely in love with it the moment it was announced.
I think the flight pleasure may not be as good as with other ships. This is an actual cow
This thing feels very much like a ‘Hero ship’, space for comfortable crew quarters, communal living area that’s big enough for the crew to interact in, a big enough cargo bay for the episode’s plot, and a pretty recognizable silhouette.
@@izackmaniac7922 I agree, the discussion for our little org while we wait for 1.0 is that we use this ship as our setting for a SC based in universe TH-cam series.
Honestly, looking at paper stats alone and 'tactical' capabilities only give you half the picture and doesn't always point the way to enjoyment. Especially if you're not part of the Min-Max community. It's not a dedicated hauler, it's a bid, deep space daily-driver for a small crew. And LODS of ships only have top mounted turrets, leaving the belly a little exposed. It's living quarters don't always have to make 100% use of every inch and cram in as much utility as possible.Sometimes, you just want something that feels like it's from a cool sci-fi movie, you own personal 'hero ship'.... something to have fun in, to look out those cool windows and enjoy SC's awesome vistas in. This is why I added this to my fleet, simply because I like the looks of it.
my feelings exactly. not all players want to min max. there’s a ship for every one in the verse. this one was made for me.
@@savethefunk Me too buddy😆👍
I finally will have my Serenity...
Came here to post this. Very much Firefly vibes on this one
I like to think of the Carrack as Serenity thanks to the medbed.
Haha i came here just to make that comparison in the comments
@@Ryecrash617your not wrong that’s 100% why i have the carrack. Shape wise in its concept carrack takes it especially with its parasite shuttle. But layout and size i think the max is closer
Multiple drop down holds is awesome and why I upgraded. I am typically chaining 5-6 delivery missions. General 3-4 drop offs and 1-2 pickups. Keeping drop off order and not blocking cargo extraction with your pickups is hard to manage. Having two distinct drop down bays will make my life MUCH easier in the local delivery cargo game.
Exactly what I was thinking.
Do you think you can fly the ship 100% alone? I'm just playing alone and looking for a cargo ship
Speaking of the ventral blindspot. It would be really nice if we were able to send control of the cheek turrets to the copilot and have the copilot aim the turrets down.
I’m gonna be honest. I didn’t think twice about upgrading my Taurus to this.
I also have the Zeus CL. And if the Taurus ever gets a report. Might upgrade to that again. But for now. This ship is going to do exactly what I want. Enough cargo to make money. Separate areas for separate jobs. Loading the Medical Ursa. Crew capable. Exploring. All the things. I thought the Galaxy was going to be the ship for me, but the more I look at it, this is the ship for me
They changed fuel prices, quantum got huge increase, are you sure that income with 220scu will be enough?
@@MurderousNoiseI am sure I read somewhere that the prices had a bug in the calculation and they are not meant to be this expensive? Could be wrong though!
@@MurderousNoise if you can't make money with cargo on one ship due to fuel cost, you can't do it on any ship due to fuel costs..... so that's going to change for sure. but yes, 224 SCU is going to make money just fine, however, it appears at CitCon, that mining and salvaging is going to be tops for money making....
It’s a nice upgrade from the Taurus.
Owning one I can understand why especially doing multiple hauling contracts.
@@MurderousNoise if they kept those prices for new players on their starter ships with their 20k uaec would net them an hr of gameplay before being bankrupt and unable to fly/play the game.
Some good insights, thanks!
One thing a good hauler needs these days is tractor beams. Unfortunately that is one thing the SL Max lacks.
The Taurus is probably the best in its class medium hauler, not only for its cargo space but the tractor beam turret that makes loading so much easier.
The MAX and C2 lack tractor beams and instead rely on painfully slow hand beams or the buggy and imprecise ATLS.
I feel like the MAX should keep the turret hard point from the TAC but make them into tractor beams.
The C2 could also retain the nose turret from the M2 and use it for a tractor beam. And maybe add one to the rear as well.
@@BuzZzKiller Speaking of the Taurus, how much cargo can it hold in only 8scu crates from cargo contracts? That would be a purchase consideration between these two ships I think.
@@N0V-A42 It's either 12 or 14 8 scu boxes. I know it holds 2 32's (8x8scu boxes) and some more behind them but can't remember if it's 2x16 or 2x24. It's cargo grid is 3 scu tall so an 8 with a 1, 2, or 4 on top of it..
@@N0V-A42 Taurus isn't a direct competitor to the SL MAX. I just used it as an example of a cargo ship done right. The MAX is closer to a 600i or Retaliator in size, and its the only cargo dedicated ship in that size class. It sits right between the Taurus and C2.
To answer your question though: The Taurus suffers from the same problem as most medium cargo ships right now: its cargo bay is only 3 SCU tall.
But with its 14x4x3 grid it can still carry 14x 8 SCU containers with room for 14 more 4 SCU containers on top of them. Which is more than enough to handle any medium cargo hauling contract below experienced level.
We don't know the actual dimensions of the SL Max's grids. But with an overall capacity of 224, it will likely be able to carry anywhere between 2-6 more 8 SCU containers than the Taurus.
Watch the video, there is an ATLS parked in the back.
@@N0V-A42 From what we can see, I think the Starlancer may, like the RAFT and C1, be able to carry any combination of crates that add up to its maximum load. As soon as Hauiing contracts arrived with their fondness for 8scu crates I realised how important it was that the cargo bay be sized as multiples of 8SCU. Suddenly my MSR was only able to carry 72scu and the FL Max could only carry 64 while my RAFT was fine with all 96scu and even the C1 could quickly load and carry that if you go off-grid. I was looking forward to buying a Zeus until I tried one for a week and saw how hard (and frustrating) it was to load more than 72scu into it.
Could be a nice, large daily driver with plenty of cargo and space for a nursa.
I think this is the natural step up from my taurus. The effective cargo space (8scu boxes) is much larger than the taurus. It also can be a titanfall ship with atls mechs which is fun if not unintended.
The problem is that it has the same shields as the Taurus while beeing larger. And less pilot controlled firepower. And i think there is no tractor turret mentioned.
I think the max isn*t a step up. It's an alternative to the Taurus. You want a better combat ship, expesially played solo, the Taurus is the better choice.
You don't want to fight or often play with your group, the Max is better suited for you.
@@vonrosphe3098
Do you think you can fly the ship 100% alone? I'm just playing alone and looking for a cargo ship
@@AK-lo4bd Yes. You can fly the Taurus Solo. I think it is a solo capable as the Zeus or Freelancer.
All these ships are to slow and sluggish to fight a group of player pirates. But against bad players or solo pirates you can win a fight.
And if you don't have to fight there is no problem to use the ship solo.
Easiest upgrade I have ever made and it was from a Taurus as I was just looking for any reason to get rid of it. Functionality wise, the Taurus was just too perfect. Aesthetic wise, it was just too old and the interior is ugly. The Starlancer MAX is basically everything I wanted to in a replacement for it. Plus with a Nursa, I can have the respawn and medical capabilities of a TAC while still having the cargo of a MAX. I know many don't like it but I love the freelancer/MISC cockpit style and extended dashboard, I'm looking forward to the Starlancer.
"many don't like it"😂 most people are upgrading their Taurus making me worry their gonna nerf the SL max
@@Aeternum_Gaming This is wrong. CIG never nerved every new ship. Or where is the nerf for the vulture, the Piscies R, the Hull A, the Raft, C1, ........
So please stop writing lies.
I prefer a more combat orientated solo usable ship. So i will keep the Taurus.
Max also seems to have no tractor. And it has the same shields while beeing a much larger target.
The Starlancer is a nice ship, but no replace for the Taurus for me.
And sooner or later the Connie will get an update on it's internals.
@@vonrosphe3098 same shields as the Taurus being 600i sized was a weird design choice tbh especially since every other ship in this category has 2 s3+ must've been a design oversight tbh
@@guynamedmaggi5520 Don't think it's an oversight since the dropship version has 2 s3 shields
Honestly, at 224 SCU, you're paying more for the amenities and such compared to the Freelancer Max than anything. I personally am looking forward more towards the BLD.
Keep in mind that doesn't include the Ursa garage. The real usable cargo capacity will probably be closer to 300. That being said we don't know how viable it will be in the future to haul cargo that isn't on the grid
@@MrClassytangerineno it does include the garage, the dropdown bay is 128 scu and the garage is 96
@@MrClassytangerine Speaking of off grid cargo I wonder if the area being meant for a ground vehicle and not just walkway would mean anything for that off grid cargo considering you don't want a ground vehicle bouncing around during maneuvers just as much as you don't want cargo bouncing around.
@@alegsb3943The rear cargo hold/garage has designated cargo areas on the side for cargo leaving the middle empty for a ground vehicle. We shouldn't lose any cargo capacity when bringing a ground vehicle.
@@N0V-A42 yeah I think all vehicle areas so far are also a cargo grid so I think it's a good chance that will be the case. I'm betting they just don't include it in the cargo specs because they want having a rover to not affect cargo capacity as a feature
I have a feeling ventral blindspot is not a problem. Just land it and use as stationary turrets:)
I drove the “free” freelancer for a long time since it’s very versatile and I want something other than the cutty, I end up getting hooked to MISC ships and I instantly upgraded my Railen to Starlancer. The Taurus loaner is perfect for its role like others said, but aesthetics wise I much preferred the Starlancer.
The Taurus loner?? Upgraded my Zeus CL to this and got a loner of a freelancer max ?? Unless they have changed it in the last day , personally would prefer a loner Taurus 👍👍
@@timjeffrey764 Yeah they are giving you a freelancer Max for a loaner while the Railen they gave you a Taurus and a syulen for loaner. Yeah the Railen is a good deal for loaners but man I am hooked to the MISC new ship aesthetics and I can’t wait to play it out in end of this year 😛
This is the niche I was looking to be filled. My Taurus isnt quite enough capacity. I am keen on adding the BLD too, despite having a Pioneer and Galaxy already. If they offered a DUR version, i'd be delighted.
If you plan on a lot of zero-g cargo loading in deep space, the MAX doesn't shine there. I love the MAX (I'm getting one, it's the Freelancer I always wanted); however, I'm keeping the Taurus for those kinds of jobs. If you do dump your Taurus, the Zeus CL or C1 Spirit could fill that niche if you feel you want to retain the capability to do that work efficiently.
@@JL-rj9fl Good point. The Starlancer probably can do zero-G loading with a ATLS in the rear and a maxlift handheld on the catwalk midship but that's a suboptimal solution. The Taurus has the turret so while zero-g loading can be done on SL MAX, it can be done better on the Taurus.
@@JL-rj9fl I dont plan on zero-g at all. Never done it yet, dont intend to start! The Taurus is going because 174scu cant compete against 224 scu. The Zeus CL is even worse than the Taurus and the C1 is "starter" level for cargo, like a Cutlass. I already have an extensive hanger so this is an upgrade of my refined material hauler from all my mining activities.
@@N0V-A42 Yeah, I really like how logistics is coming along in SC. The fact that we have to look at different designs and make these decisions of what to use for what job (among the same class of ship) is one of my favorite parts about SC. So many ships with pros and cons for their use case(s).
I like it! It won't be for everyone, but for some, it is something that will serve it's purpose well in the verse. I'm a solo player, but have been looking for a medium sized exploring ship that I can stock up and live in whilst venturing in game.
They said x8 size 4s, 224scu and full 4-man crew cabin amenities and I responded with a menacing look toward my trusty Connie Taurus, a side-eye that was signaling that it is likely going to retirement home soon. I bought my Warbond CCU from my Taurus to the Starlancer MAX, now I just wait for it to release, find someone to let me test it out a bit and if all is well, hit "APPLY".
The ONLY downside I see immediately is the standard MISC "kitchen table" sized cockpit.
I am a Drake fan and have always hated the Freelancers but I am actually replacing my Corsair with a Starlancer Max. It does everything the Corsair does same or better. Better cabins, better cargo, same range, same Nav speed. You might argue that the Corsair has two side turrets as well as a remote turret while the MAX only has two remotes being handled by a single gunner but in my experience the side turrets are almost useless with their poor firing arc and only able to shoot at enemies as they zip past too fast to aim at. Also, the Corsairs turret gunner is having to handle the lower front guns at the same time and those only have a 30 degree arc.
Im a drake fan but also a misc fan so it was a no brainer for me. Honestly all the corsair would have to do for me is have a bigger cargo capacity and i wouldve never upgraded.
plus the corsair got nerfed pretty bad. Starlancer prob gonna be my daily i upgraded from my cl to it.
@@Astelchthis is a 600i sized ship bro I don’t think it’s a good daily if your solo
@@flamebreaker7318 I daily the Corsair/600i often. I like the feel of a slower ship with some weight to it. If I need to faster ship usually the cutlass never lets me down.
Of the opinion this should have just been called the Starlancer, and had a max variant with even more cargo space at the cost of manoeuvrability (and/or firepower), so it competed better against the likes of the C2 which it's starting to approach in size.
Then again, viewing it as less than double the SCU of a Freelancer Max isn't entirely fair, when it has dedicated spots for vehicles and engineering, and will be a lot less cramped than the freelancers in that regard. It will probably still have the 600i beat for some notions of practicality and space efficiency.
It looks like it will be quick to pop cargo in and out from that center area, and it may indeed be nice for group gameplay/roleplay... we'll see.
It has more SCU cap than the TAC and BLD.... so it justifies it's own name.
@@Nemoticon The Freelancer has more cargo then the DUR and MIS. That's their point. The base Freelancer has no moniker, why does the base Starlancer have the moniker MAX?
@@N0V-A42 Because the variants of ships NOW have a tendancy to have individual monikers, like the Zeus and the Apollo. It's not like the old ships didn't have these either, MISC have seperate monikers for the Reliant series too. It's not that big of a deal either, point being... is the ship to your liking? If not, no problem, there are hundreds of other ships to choose from. It really is a minor thing you're getting stuck on.
MISC already has a specialized cargo line in the Hull.
The Starlancer is a people ship.
@@JoshSweetvale EXACTLY
We really need to know the size of the cargo grids. If this thing can be filled up with 7 32-SCU boxes, then it becomes a much better hauler. Fast loading without playing tetris is important. I'd also like to know how much cargo space is lost loading a URSA in the back. If you only lose 24 SCU or something, then you could drop in a NURSA and still haul 200 units of cargo which would be far superior to anything less than C2.
There's a Star Citizen subreddit post titled "Starlancer series cargo grids guesses. Feel free to drop any ideas." that appears to have a pretty good prediction of what the cargo grid will look like in each variant.
The MAX appears to have two 2•16•2 cargo grids on the midship drop-down cargo hold and two 2•8•3 cargo grids on the sides of the rear ramped cargo hold/garage area. It looks like we won't lose any cargo to ground vehicles unless you start bringing multiple and park them on the cargo grid. That also works in reverse and we might be able to get an additional 4•8•3 block of cargo in between the two side cargo grids in the rear hold for a total of 320scu with 96scu off-grid.
You can hold 6 32 scu cargo boxes underneath and more then likely more in the back cargo area. We really won't know until the ship comes out 22 Nov.
@@Macskinny76 No, that's wrong... the drop platform holds 128 SCU that'll be 4 X 32 Cargo Containers and in the back it has 96 SCU of cargospace and that would be 4 X 24 Crago Containers
@@oOPrinzValiumOo nah, 2 X 32 + 16 in small boxes ontop of each.
Also the utsa does not take up cargo space, the grids are to the sides of the garage spot.
I agree that I would like to see the top-mid turret on the bottom, front or rear, to compliment the top rear turret's coverage.
I actually see this ship as a step up from the Connie Taurus, with a similar crew complement, but better components, 33% more cargo space, room for a vehicle without losing all your room for cargo, and weapons coverage to the rear. The rear vehicle bay can house a Nursa for spawning to, the turrets both up top give good coverage when landed while using this ship as a mobile base, and you have plenty of capacity for cargo of all sorts - shipments, found loot, basic needs.
The ability to load the Ursa in the rear and carry a load of cargo is going to be great.
The turrets are in great places to defend the ship when it is on the ground loading and unloading, or just off-grid living.
I bought the Taurus in concept for $150. Melted it when the Constellations were in a bad place and weren't updated. Bought it back a couple patches back when it was better. Upgraded to the Starlancer Max because of the extra cargo and MUCH better live-aboard capabilities. For the extra $25 for to get the War bond, I'm into this for $175. I'm thinking it will be closer to $300 at launch. Great way to save a good bit for further upgrades...like maybe the BLD - Building variant... IF I don't like it.
Edit: Obviously haven't tried it, but the ramp between the mid-cargo bays seems a good spot for an ATLS if it fits... (missed that location in this video)
I love the Starlancer Max, been flying it exclusively since it was released.
Doing hauling missions and Save Stanton missions.
It’s just a fun ship.
My only wish, would be the entire back area have a cargo grid, not just on the sides, if I’m hauling, I’m not having a vehicle in there
It's a placeholder for the base building variant. Plain and simple.
To you 🙂 I plan on both - but would be very interested in a DUR equivalent as well.
Yup this is much more of a "home away from home that can carry cargo" than a dedicated cargo ship - if you want pure cargo, there are better options. It is very strange that this ship has no front bow ramp, given there seems to be no real reason to not have one, and as much as the catwalk through the cargo bay is cute, with a full deck above it there really is no reason this could not have simply been a full width cargo lift, which would have significantly improved its payload. Further, it means that you can never put a vehicle in the front bay, even if you could get it under the hull. Four giant rooms rather than something useful like a repair shop? Very strange design choices which honestly feel like the Max was deliberately nerfed from what could have been a fantastic Serenity clone, into a ship with bad defensive coverage, awful letterbox view, and tiny windows so you can't even enjoy the increasingly beautiful game from inside what is, fundamentally, a touring ship with some extra cargo space. And don't be fooled - big turrets mean nothing without the firing arc, this big bird (and the combat one) are done if anyone attacks from below and astern. The turrets on the Tali base at $100 less make more sense if you are thinking about actually using the guns - they have far better coverage. I still really like this ship ... but don't be fooled into thinking it will be more than a big, slow, easy to hit target.
I would put this at around the same level as the Constellation Phoenix, especially with the bar and the pool table in there. It can carry more cargo and vehicles, however. And the side loading looks interesting. It'll be interesting to see how it flies and whether it can be solo'ed effectively.
The max was definitely Misc designers going "we should probably see a cargo version of the bld because we can manufature them to order without retooling the production line" just a variant for someone who wants it.
I bought one, but more as a stepping stone for the Starlancer BLD. The BLD will almost certainly be more and as a stepping stone it is a good jump with only 5 investment in a terrapin which will get a warbond sale by IAE.
I have an upgrade token from my Andromeda to this sitting in my hangar, waiting for IAE to try it out and see if I actually like it. I like cargo mission and wanted something between the 128~ of the Zeus, Taurus, and MSR, but don't know if I'll need as much space as C2 offers right off the hop. It feels like the perfect sweet spot for me. I also love that we get a rear cargo space, as well as the two side bays, so if you are dropping off cargo to a less than ideal location you can strategically place cargo and drop off the side easily. And while it's not meant as a dropship, I feel like it'll be good for dropping a vehicle and crew easily from those spots and taking off, without sacrificing cargo space like the TAC does.
Im gonna use this as an allround transport vehicle. Well, except for combat that is.
As i already mentioned in your TAC video, i found the bld and max very interesting. i would have liked to buy them both in duplicate. as a construction drone ship for basebuilding in the future, i'm sure it would be a great thing.
however, i would not upgrade my taurus for this. and those who plan to do so, buy the upgrade and wait until the standalone has tested how good the ship actually is and then decide.
I like the look, of course it echoes in your head “i have enough cargo ships that i don't really need” but i still bought it. it won't replace the solo firepower of a taurus and its practical tractor beam. it doesn't have to be the misc answer to the conni, just bigger and different!
i will buy the bld, the tac probably won't for the time being.
Taurus can’t even compare to Starlancer Max… for what it offers in multiple categories. For own you put a URSA you lose all your cargo holding power.
Max has 128 SCU drop down while 96 in the garage.
Also Connie’s are so outdated I rather own a Freelancer over any Connie.
@@XxTRUEPINOYxX14 the connie is certainly outdated, and simply a legend, but it has completed hundreds of thousands of flying hours with many citizens and has proven itself in everything. The max is not even out and has to prove itself first! That's why the connies have no competition to fear. I would never give mine away, I'd rather tip my corsair into the melt.
If you load a URSA into the Andromeda, yes, there are still 12 SCU free, about 60 SCU with the Taurus. You can compare them very well, because they are very much aimed at the same crew of four.
We'll see what she's like in the end, I'm looking forward to flying this Starlancer whale. Freelancer against a conni, never, knocking conni off the throne is pretty much impossible so far, especially since the corsair nerf.
I currently have freelancer max as a loamer and find it terribly bad.
This seems to ironically be the Cutlass's next step up as far as "easy to hop on with a friend or two or three and go do things together" ship. Haul cargo, run planetside missions, NPC bounties, etc. If living space/amenities end up mattering to sustain time out away from a town or station, then it also covers that. It's like a Misc take on the Constellation.
I'd still take a Taurus over this for pure "internal cargo hauling" gameplay, but I think cargo space for the hybrid haulers like the Zeus CL, C2, Caterpillar, Taurus, and so forth will end up being used for utility rather than hyper-efficient space trucker loops. Holding materials intended to be used out in the field like metal for repairs, a couple of small ground vehicles, armor kits and weapons, food and water, and so forth. People see "cargo space" and think cargo.
Think more along the lines of what you'd put in the back of a Suburban and not what you'd put in the back of an 18-wheeler.
Is a perfect ship to pick up goods from a planetside base that is mining and transfer to you base that crafts.
That lowering cargo is nice. Also seems to basically be the only feature. Drip fed even. Gonna be interesting to see the next couple years of ships. In the medium-large class especially.
Not sure three crew elevators are necessary but, Misc uses space a bit different I guess. Just surprised a whole class barely gets 100 more scu over Freelancer Max. For four crew.
Those cutaway shots are nice.
I would say the Railen and tarsus are it’s competitors seeing how it it’s in the middle of them, trade off being it’s a big boi compared to both of them but more firepower than the other two if fully crewed as well
I purchased a $75 warbond CCU for my Freelancer MAX to the Starlancer MAX. My Freelancer MAX was part of a ship bundle that included the MISC Expanse (even though I hate the Expanse - long story), but if I didn’t own the Freelancer already, I’d probably pass on the Starlancer.
My reasoning for upgrading to the Starlancer is that NEWER IS ALWAYS BETTER with Star Citizen’s ships. I’ve never liked the base Freelancer’s exterior or interior design, but I did like the MAX’s chunky, utilitarian aesthetic. The Starlancer is a more refined and up-to-date design, whereas it could be YEARS before CIG updates the Freelancer series. With double the cargo capacity, strong defensive capabilities, and all the amenities packed into the Starlancer, it seemed extremely reasonable for only an extra $75.
The Freelancer MAX is a ship I would always solo because its rear turret is a joke. I’d rather risk getting raided than split my profits with a useless tail-gunner. Whereas the Starlancer MAX is a ship I would actually multi-crew.
Also, the Starlancer MAX fills a gap in my transport ship collection in the ~250 SCU range, between my Argo RAFT and Caterpillar.
Admittedly, I haven’t applied the CCU yet because I’m waiting for the Starlancer to be flyable. As a Subscriber, I should receive a loaner Starlancer, which I’ll test fly it to see how I like it.
I think it's a good ship for people who want something bigger than an andromeda, but don't want to go all the way to an oddysey, I think it's a good all-rounder comparable to a 600i explorer for people who don't want to go all out.
Although considering the size I'd say it's probably for people who are expecting to play with friends / as part of an org a lot and not for single people due to the engineering work such a large ship brings with it.
Crew requirements are hefty. The Railen makes for an interesting comparison size, cargo capacity, crew requirements, and real world costs.
Does it fit a c8x?
Its not a new design. If you look at all other manufacturers and even MISC every shipclass is pretty unique apart from the Hull series which really do just scale up.
Same here, this is just a bigger variant of the Freelancer. A little bit smaller and it would have been the Freelancer MK 2.
And that was most likely their intention. I doubt this was planned as a new ship but rather a Freelancer replacement. Its extremely obvious. It has the exact same silhouette along with the semingly rotating main engines mounted on rings, but obviously they won't rotate.
Its a holdover from the very first Freelancer design. Even the upper front turret is basically just replacing the Freelancer airlock. And it has the same weird wings on the engines.
Yet even the Freelancer is not noticeably better because of its wings than a Connie.
And the Starlancer will be even less manouverable, otherwise it would be crazy if the Starlancer as twice the size of a Freelancer flies almost the same. That would be like spitting in the faces of all Freelancer pilots.
This is what I imagined the Freelancer gold pass / remake / MKII to look like
How is it for combat? I'm looking for a larger upgrade to the Vanguard Sentinel, but it seems like anything larger requires a multi crew for turrents.
I'm assuming its a maneuverable and armored hauler, unlike the Hull-series of ships, and the lack of ventral turrets is minimal as the pilot can probably keep the nose on point for larger fighters and can probably shrug off light fighters. That being said, I don't see the advantage over the Constellation-series of ships unless I'm correct about the Starlancer being armored.
all ships are armored, currently only by HP pools. That is changing as some ships are armoed now for testing.
The MAX will have 2 Medium Quantum Fuel Tanks. The Value of the cargo from distant systems may make it worth having the extra crew worth it.
Like the shape of the ship as most Misc ships appeal to me. Depending on the future of the Corsair and pilot controlled weapons I might swap the Corsair for the Starlancer Max
Hey is there a problem with the freelancer max ladders, have it as my loner and I cannot figure out how to get out of the ship using the ladder as the door doesn’t open 😢
id say it is definitely a Taurus competitor. It costs a bit more, has a bit more cargo and a bit more firepower. Cargo capacity per dollar are pretty similar... So yh, definitely a Taurus competitor.
Edit: I have to disagree with you. Even though I don't like MISC and would never buy a ship from them, this one here is the big brother from the Taurus, one of the best and most liked ship I've seen in the game rn. So I don't think they missed the spot with it at all.
The Taurus is the better pick for solo players in my opinion.
@@Parzival117kinda. If you want to have more fighting power then Taurus. If you want more cargo I’d still say Starlancer, but again, they are very close
It's close to Starfarer size with similar weapons and cargo space.
I have both Odyssey and a Starlancer. My idea is to probably upgrade max to the builder when it comes. Unless i melt it and buy vehicles i can use in my Odyssey. Still unsure what ship to have inside it. I have 2 Atls and 1 CSV-sm. Probably want a Ursa Rover for expeditions
Currently my main driver is a Taurus.
Brilliant ship but this does feel like the star lancer has the edge. Thoughts ?
They absolutely could have spent the time building the odyssey instead, but alas. new ship ig
Just made the upgrade from the Andromeda to this because it's more of a space house and since the TAC isn't hitting until next year, this will suit me fine for now.
I loved the firepower of the Andro but the insides I hated!
The Starlancer series seems to allow more options for space living and stuff I want to do...now if the handling is on par with the connie then that will be fine for combat too. I'm used to that coming from the Connies/Corsair/Redeemer/Reclaimer all solo'd.
This also might be a good mothership option (until AI blades come) as bigger ships like the Polaris etc aren't as solo friendly.
What do you think about the firepower of the SL Max vs the Andromeda?
@@DapperGordy Having just flown one on the PTU, I couldn't get a bounty mission working to test the MAX yet. But ofc the connie will out dps the max (4/S5 vs the max 4/S4). Just the Max insides and fun-ctionality are amazing! The 2 cargo areas just feel better!
And she flies surprisingly well!
While I've already purchased the Starlancer MAX via CCU chain, I'm hoping the BLD will be accessible with one more upgrade because that's my ultimate goal. Consequently, I've already got a Freelancer DUR, an Odyssey, and an Endeavor (and a slew of other ships).
When you do that, do you get the ship, or do you get a temporary loan ship until it releases?
@@whydoineedthisB , that depends if it goes on sale during IAE; if it does, then I'm guessing the MAX will be the loaner.
@@Luckdragon2000 I would be CCU it from the Zeus CL since it's the only ship I have.
IMHO it's a slightly less pragmatic Connie Taurus with better interior and assets because it's new. I got the 5 USD upgrade from the Terrapin but will probably upscale for the base builder version later.
I really like the way the cargo can be loaded onto elevators to either side of a catwalk. Living space is nice too. Imo the gun selection is a mistake. I’d rather fewer turrets that are size threes but with really good coverage than those armor piercing behemoths that are better suited to taking out larger ships but it is what it is. Also it requires a ton of crew. TBH, for that much crew I’d want a larger hold. As to the other one…. One size fits all gunship? Uh, not sure how well that will fit but sure. Let’s see it when it comes out. Now that even the medium crew ships basically useless for solo players I’m curious about the whole direction of the game.
The starlancer looks more like an exploration vessel. Kind of too bad it isnt really one
The Odessey and Freelancer DUR fill that niche for the MISC line.
@@zmortis111 the oddysey is way too big and the dur is way too small. The oddysey is a 8+ player ship. The dur is a 2 player one (realistically... no one wants 4 people in a dur)
Having done some hauling in the MAX I feel like the experience kind of sucks without crew. It's got worse angles for the cargo bays, and the travel from the ground to the cockpit is significantly longer. The back bay seems to be the easiest to load but as mentioned there is a bunch of space consumed by the vehicle area which lacks a cargo grid. The central bay is all cargo grid but has the awkward walkway in the middle consuming a large amount of space and complicating loading. An ATLS also does not fit well into the central cargo bay as a result of the walkway.
Overall, the Starlancer MAX has me looking forward to the gold standard pass of the Freelancer MAX which I enjoy using a bit more when it comes to solo hauling. Oddly enough though the Starlancer MAX currently flies better than the Freelancer MAX. (Patch 3.24.3)
It can land on the surface. Only thing that the Hul-C can't do with load.
can I play the ship 100% alone? I always play solo. Or would you recommend a solo freighter please. Thanks
Every ship can be soloed. But the smaller the crew you have the less effective the ship is going to be. And you have to ask yourself, how much loss are you willing to take and still consider this ship to be what you want it to be? When it comes to the MAX and the TAC it seems like all you're going to lose is its combat abilities. If you could live with that than I'd say go with your instincts and stick with this ship. If not you should look into getting something from the hull series. Those ships need a lot less people to run them and they can haul a lot of cargo for their size.
@@lawofthewestgaming Danke für ihre Antwort. Ich habe mir gerade die Connie Taurus angesehen diese gefällt mir auch sehr. Es ist schwer etwas zu finden :)
I'd consider the Starlancer MAX if the cockpit wasn't so MISC...
I don't thinknthebdesign is flawed with the blindspots, you have to remember major cargo haulers will mote then likely have escorts to help with defense
I want to love this ship but I don't see the point of it. The whole back should be full cargo grid and the retarded walkway shouldn't be there so there can be more cargo. I like the suggestion that some have of this being a base model with a MAX version being reserved to compete in cargo size with the catepillar or almost that much. This is the jack of all trades master of none category, but MAX makes it tagged as cargo. This wastes an obnoxious amount of cargo space for other things. This isn't a cargo ship, it's an all purpose ship mistakenly labelled as MAX imo.
I agree, it's the superior equivalent of the standard Freelancer but not the Max
So I bought the Starlancer MAX but since it releases next patch and I play on the LIVE one I got a Freelancer Max so I should get it when 3.24.3 drops right? 🤔
Edit: i just read up about "loaners" im quite new to the game
Yup, you'll get the Starlancer MAX once .3 drops November 22nd. I can't wait. I hate that we get the Freelancer MAX as a loaner tho. It needs a rework badly.
@tylertiffin9067 facts! Well thanks for answering either way 🙏
They should inceease its scu cap to more or less 300 cause I feel 224 is quite lacking for its price and size. And those turret placements are horrible they should optimize turret coverage to promote team work. I mean who would enjoy going into groups and for you to only end up on the turret that couldn't engage in the fun. Trust me, I used to go along with org mates to crew up big ships and many of us stopped going, cause of said reason.
If you don’t own a large cargo ship already and only the standard medium cargo Zeus c1 freelancer etc then this is actually a no brainer. Also will probably be a good ship to run ert/vaughns in because of the firepower it has as well as its cargo capacity. Just an opinion though
I like the amount of cargo and the interior amenities but I don't like MISC's aesthetics and it seems like you'll need to load cargo from three different entrances which works if you have multiple people loading cargo but loading solo will be unnecessarily cumbersome.
Originally loved my Freelancer Max but because pushed away over time.
Zeus CL wins as my favorite Medium Cargo hauler.
Starlancer Max wins at my favorite larger cargo hauler.
the only reason this ship has any value in my opinion is because it is a direct brand upgrade from the freelancer so if you are partial to the brand and the look i see value in that alone.
There's a lot of wasted space in the top deck. They could have moved the armory upstairs and then used that space for more cargo on the lower deck.
My biggest gripe though ... it is SO SLOW. The thing can barely outrun a Reclaimer. Most other large ships are much heavier and yet somehow much faster than the Starlancer.
Why does it look like a bad dragon toy?
MY NEW MOBILE BASE!!!!! All I gotta do is slide in a Nursa and I'll still have SO MUCH CARGO SPACE LEFT!!!!
Why would you want un upgrade to the Freelancer max, the size of a 600i, but only carries 224 scu? This is no competitor to the Hull Series, the Hull C carrying 2400 scu+
IF you want prtoctection , get the Ironclad or Ironclad assault with 5-6 times the cargo.
The $$$ cost is insanely different bro. Hull C is for safe hauling....meaning not the most lucrative routes unless youre also willing to pay for someone to babysit you for hours.
Ships like the Zeus CL and Starlanver Max make me suspicious that CIG are intentionally designing flaws into ships.
lol dude that's well known fact since the beginning, when the devs admitted that the upper wing on the Freelancer is purposely there to block the turret's field of fire
It was a 5$ upgrade over a terrapin, so I got one anyway, but the ship is the usual "Rule of cool" design, made by "Artists" with no clue about Funtion-to-form hierarchy (I'm an Architect 🤦♂️)
The double turrets on top, limited to180° FOW by the impeding junk in the middle, speaks volumes, when nothing else covers the belly and the rear of the ship's hull.
The central cargo bay also is brainless, difficult to load up from both sides due to an unnecessary catwalk in the middle, and the huge mess hallway in the top-middle is a sinfull waste of space, with the afterward 4 large bedrooms that cant even fill all the space they free up with the decision to kill a usefull hangar bay because "REASONS".
I'm pretty suere I won't stick with the ship, looking at it as a CCU chain link to something else.
Mmmm I’ve decided I don’t think this really fits what I want, I am happy with my Taurus and seeing the Zeus I am looking forward to the rework for the Connie (whenever that is) and I also have an ironclad assault as well. This does fit in between but nothing my Taurus can’t handle
That's not great that the 228scu comprises of the 96scu in the back.
If i had more than 128 then would have to load the back, which breaks the flow of loading and unloading, and constitutes little gain over the Taurus imo, if any
I would have rathered less crew recreation and more scu
It's nice but I already have a 400i, for all its benefits and negatives.
I have the same instincts about the ship. I sorta like it but ultimately I've decided I don't want it. I think I want the Galaxy. But I'm not sure it's part of the list of ships they are working for the next 12 months.
The Galaxy is not on the list for 2025 as far as I could tell. Ship modularity is still a missing functionality at the moment.
I melted my taurus to Give the starlancer a shot. If it doesn't pan out I might return to the taurus.
The review is here! And so is my comment for the algorithm.
When you use the word algorithm, it doesn’t count.
@@CraigPaschang So if this comment doesn't say that it should count.
Everyone compares it to the 600i but it's also nearly the size of a C2 which holds a LOT more cargo. I think I like this better, but just saying it's in that size class.
C2 is a fantastic ship. But also a lot more expensive. More of an end-game hauler while this is more mid-game. Just depends where you're at.
@@secretweapon7764 I'm not talking about cost, just sized. Everyone is like "That makes it 600i size". Well it also makes it C2 size. That's a BIG ship. Much larger than I realized until I looked closer.
Just did the math, the c2 occupies over twice the volume of the starlancer max. It's much closer to a msr in size (about 20% larger).
In terms of hauling the C2 is straight up better. But it also costs almost double, so…
Too late. Melted 2 ships and some paints for credits, bought the Zeus CL warbond upgrade from the Prospector and the Starlancer Max warbond upgrade from the Terrapin for $5 each. $10 for a $40 upgrade is not too shabby.
honestly I don't really see the point of the Starlancer MAX, a RSI Galaxy is in the same large category and can transport 400 SCU whil a C2 Hercules can almost take 700
Just a quick correction for you: the Galaxy's cargo capacity with the cargo module is 576. (512 for the module + 64 units in the hangar area).
The difference is $225 USD for the Starlancer MAX while the Galaxy was $380 USD when last on sale. That extra capacity costs.
@@zmortis111The Starlancer MAX is $250. $225 is the discount warbond price. Still a big $130 jump though.
Not a fan of this ship, and I ❤ the Freelancer Max.
Out of curiosity. What don't you like about it? Is there anything you like about it?
@@N0V-A42 the Starlancer feels like a lesser version of other ships. The cargo is sub optimal to other cargo ships its size and the rear turret has an intentionally built in restriction that keeps it from firing forward. Things like the latter are poor design choices they seem to include so that the ship can't function too well in combat by adding things that don't need to be there.
I do like the three access options and the living quarters are nice, but the ability to function in its main roll is not as well thought out as other cargo haulers. It's just okay.
The Galaxy feels like a better version of this ship and is modular.
@@N0V-A42 I may have to eat my words. How that CIG is stating the Galaxy won't have a base building module. Unbelievable. So there may be strong consideration for the Starlancer after all.
You're comparing the Starlancer to the Hull C? Really? I mean pricepoint sure, but the Hull is way more bang for buck right now. Unless they start modeling custom critical type cargo where it needs to be taken directly from surface to surface in a hurry and they pay a huge premium for it.
As I understand the planned cargo hauling game, large bulk cargo (Hull C, D, E class) is almost always going to be space station to space station. The exception on the smaller end of the scale is vehicle ground to ground delivery with the Crusader Hercules. I could see some exceptions like planet side bases with docking ports.
I would have happily picked up the Starlancer BLD as a concept, but iv got no interest in the MAX or TAC
I'd compare the Starlancer MAX to the Connie Taurus. It's probably better value, but you lose out on the Connie's firepower and defences.
If I look at what they did to the corsair I would bet they nerf the firefower of the connies when they rework them
This will fly like an oil soaked rag. How exciting.
bro this is a misc connie without a parasite ship dock
Wonderful ship, ruined by the cockpit view ... or lack thereof.
redeemer and corsair killer, no wonder that they were nerfed...
... the perfect-ship...
The Starlancer MAX seems like an potentially interesting ship (although all that "Deep Space" nonsense is just marketing BS imo). That TAC variant however shows how CIG intentionally gutted the Redeemer just to push the TAC variant a week later at the same price which now has everything the Redeemer had plus dropseats and even a medbay. The Redeemer now just has nothing going for it anymore.
Eh I wouldn't draw too much a comparison between the 2.
Redeemer is absolutely TINY compared to this beefchonk of misc metal. I believe redeemer was released way outside it's original "hind helicopter in space" idea. No way a ship like that with 3 crew should have ever threatened a hammerhead or larger ships the way it did.
@@schlagzahne6741 this 100%, the Starlancer is only about 7-9 meters shorter than the 600i and is the same size in the other two dimensions. The Starlancers are both much larger than the redeemer. here are the percentages.
Length Increase: ~62.75%
Width Increase: 108%
Height Increase: ~14.29%
@@DanakarEndeel they gutted the 400i and the corsair as well. I was so mad about the 400i need I melted it for a Starlancer Max. I get that they are doing it for balance reasons because CIG will be doing a big component rework. One selling point for the 400i for me was that it had three power plants. A component which was planned to have sub components. Which left a lot of room for modifications and tuning. With the big engineering push it was my home that sub-components would reemerge and give the 400i a whole different level of possibilities with ship component modification. Then to just need it down to a single power plant I was so disappointed. So I bought a Max about it.
I wouldn't be too worried. By the looks of what we've seen the TAC seems to be geared towards a sort of mobile troop base, being able to quickly deploy and receive troops and smaller vehicles and provide cover for ground units in combat situations
@@schlagzahne6741 Uhm, did you forget the Perseus which also just needs a crew of 3-4?
Besides, I stand by what I said. They gutted the Redeemer just to offer up this 'Super Redeemer' with the same stuff the original Redeemer had plus more. I still remember how much of a stink CIG made over the Redeemer being a gunship with the ability to carry some marines and decided to make it a pure gunship. Now it's nothing anymore because 2xS4 guns on a turret are just defense turrets. For it to be viable it needs at least quad-guns on the two manned turrets (similar to other attack ships like the Hurricane/Scorpius/Hammerhead).
too late already have my chain ready
I messed up and thought it was out allready and spent 35$ when I could have spent 5 next month
?
When ships come out of concept their prices increase, also discounts applied, so I dont expect warbond will cost less than it cost now. Look at zeus, with discount it has same price when it was in concept. In the end you pay the same. Or I miss something?
@@secretweapon7764Starlancer Max is set to release 3.24.3
@@secretweapon7764 war bound ccu for bis
Its a MISC meaning it gonna get that awful cockpit. Not for me because of that :(
The cockpit viewable space should be a lot larger though.
If you sit back and look at the dimensions, it's almost the length of the Polaris, just 10 meters short. Of course, correct me if I'm wrong on that, but even with the blind side underbelly, you can take a hit and keep on going. This isn't a small ship where it'll drop from one shot, granted loosing an engine would be the most down side to this ship, and others have down played the flying of the ship due to atmo flying and handling. I think CIG fixed this problem, even the Connie's had it bad when it came to atmo flight, and yes; I'll agree that there should've been a tractor beam on the ship, but the Atlas can make things much faster with it's range and weight carrying increase.
The polaris is twice as big? 170m vs 80m
You are TO LATE muaAHHahaha 😂
Looking to sell my account